World Bank's Budget: Trends and for FY13 · FY13 BUDGET DOCUMENT ‐ 1 ‐ 1. OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This document sets out the FY13 World Bank budget for approval by the Board

World Bank's Budget: Trends and

Recommendations for FY13

JULY 27, 2012

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

CORPORATE FINANCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT

This document contains forward looking statements that are based on management's expectations, estimates,

projections and assumptions. Words such as "proposes," "plans," "estimates," "anticipates," "intends," and

variations of these words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward‐looking statements. Such

statements are not guarantees of future performance. As with any projection or forecast, they are inherently

susceptible to uncertainty and changes in circumstances, and the Bank is under no obligation to update or alter its

forward looking statements, whether as a result of such changes, new information, subsequent events or

otherwise.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb350881

Typewritten Text

71704

FY13 BUDGET DOCUMENT

i

CONTENTS

1. OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 FY13 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 2

2. A REFLECTION ON THE FY13‐15 BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS AND BOARD DISCUSSIONS .............. 4

2.1 REVAMPING THE BUDGET AND BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS AND BOARD ENGAGEMENTS ......... 4

2.2 MAIN ISSUES IN THIS YEAR’S BUDGET CYCLE ..................................................................................... 6

3. FY13‐15 BUDGET FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 11

3.1 SUMMARY OF THE FY13 ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL AND EXPECTED EXTERNAL

FUNDING ................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 THE NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ................................................................................................. 13

3.3 REALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE PROPOSED FY13 NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET ........................... 15

CORPORATE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS .................................................................................................. 16

FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.4 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY UNIT TYPE............................................................................................... 22

3.5 NON‐UNIT SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS ........................................................................................................ 24

3.6 BELOW‐THE‐LINE ITEMS ................................................................................................................... 25

BOARD‐RELATED BUDGETS ................................................................................................................. 25

STAFF‐RETIREMENT AND RELATED PLANS .......................................................................................... 26

GRANT‐MAKING FACILITIES ................................................................................................................ 27

3.7 PRICE FACTOR ................................................................................................................................... 29

3.8 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 30


ii

ANNEXES

ANNEX A: RESTORING BUDGET FLEXIBILITY ............................................................................................... 33

ANNEX B: NEW PROGRAM COST SUMMARY TABLE ................................................................................... 35

ANNEX C: REIMBURSABLES ......................................................................................................................... 41

ANNEX D: CAPITAL BUDGET ........................................................................................................................ 44

ANNEX E: ONGOING BUDGET‐RELATED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... 52

BOXES

Box 2.1: A Window on Results ...................................................................................................................... 5

Box 3.1: Presentation of Bank Resources in the Budget Document ........................................................... 12

Box 3.2: Myanmar Program ........................................................................................................................ 17

Box 3.3: Open Knowledge Repository ........................................................................................................ 18

Box 3.4: How Network Anchors, WBI and DEC are approaching the proposed budget reductions ........... 20

Box 3.5: H‐Building IT Data Center Relocation ........................................................................................... 32

TABLES

Table 3.1: FY12/13 Budget and Total Funds Summary ($ million) .............................................................. 12

Table 3.2: Sources and Uses of Funding ..................................................................................................... 16

Table 3.3: Change in the Bank Budget Plan by Unit Type ($FY12 million) .................................................. 22

Table 3.4: Change in External Funds by Unit Type ($FY12 million) ............................................................ 23

Table 3.5: External Funds ($FY12 million) ................................................................................................... 23

Table 3.6: Reimbursables by Unit Type ($FY12 million) ............................................................................. 24

Table 3.7: Change in All Funds by Unit Type ($FY12 million) ‐ Budget Plan and External Funds ............... 24

Table 3.8: Non‐Unit Specific Accounts ($FY12 million Bank Budget) ......................................................... 25

Table 3.9: Board‐Related Budgets ($FY12 million) ..................................................................................... 26

Table 3.10: Grant‐Making Facility Budgets ($ million) ................................................................................ 29


iii

Table 3.11: Capital Program Summary – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15 ................................................ 31

Table B.1: Total Bank Budget Work Program Funding FY11‐15 ($ million) ................................................ 35

Table B.2: Program Cost Summary – All Funds – FY11‐15 ($ million) ......................................................... 37

Table C.1: Reimbursements and Fee Income FY09‐FY13 ($ millions) ......................................................... 43

Table D.1: Capital Program Summary – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15 ................................................. 44

Table D.2: Thematic Organization and Programs – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15 ................................ 46

Table D.3: Capital Program ‐ Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15................................................................... 47

Table D.4: Capital Investment Schedule – Washington Facilities FY13‐FY15 ............................................. 48

Table D.5: Capital Investment Schedule – Country Facilities FY13‐FY15 .................................................... 49

Table D.6: Technology and Systems – Incremental Impact FY13‐FY15 ...................................................... 50

Table D.7: Technology and Systems – IT Depreciation in Central Accounts FY13‐FY15 ............................. 51

FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Net Administrative Budget Utilization FY06‐FY15 .................................................................... 14


iv

ACRONYMNS

BB Bank Budget BETF Bank‐Executed Trust Fund CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research COGOV Corporate Governance CSF Civil Society Fund DGF Development Grant Facility DPL Development Policy Loan FAC Finance, Administrative and Corporate Units FCS Fragile and Conflict‐affected Situations GPSA Global Partnership for Social Accountability HQ Headquarters IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IDA International Development Association IDF Institutional Development Fund IFC International Finance Corporation IMF International Monetary Fund IT Information Technology IPS Integrated Planning System KLC Knowledge and Learning Council MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTBF Medium‐Term Business and Finance OKR Open Knowledge Repository QBRR Quarterly Business and Risk Review RAMP Reserve Advisory and Management Program RETF Recipient‐Executed Trust Funds SSA Shared Service Arrangement SMU Sector Management Unit SPF State and Peace Building Fund VPU Vice Presidential Unit

Organizational Units

AFR Africa Region CFP Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships Unit CFR Corporate Finance and Risk Management Unit DEC Development Economics Unit EAP East Asia and Pacific Region ECA Europe and Central Asia Region EXT External Affairs FPD Financial and Private Sector Development Unit GSD General Services Department


v

HDN Human Development Network HRS Human Resources Unit IAD Internal Auditors IEG Independent Evaluation Group IMT INT

Information Management and Technology Unit Integrity Vice Presidency

LCR Latin America and Caribbean Region LEG Legal Unit MNA Middle East and North Africa Region OPCS Operations Policy and Country Services Unit PREM Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network SAR South Asia Region SBU Sanctions Board Unit SDN Sustainable Development Network SEC Corporate Secretariat TRE Treasury Unit WBI World Bank Institute


‐ 1 ‐

1. OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This document sets out the FY13 World Bank budget for approval by the Board of Executive Directors. It

also includes indicative budget numbers for FY14‐15, the remainder of the three‐year planning period.

The budget implements the framework set out in the Medium‐Term Business and Finance (MTBF) paper.

Any variation in specifics from the MTBF framework is explained in the document.

1.1 OVERVIEW

1. Consistent with the Medium‐Term Business and Finance paper, Management is proposing a net

administrative budget that is flat in real terms (i.e., using the World Bank’s price adjustment factor),

and managed within the +/‐ 2 percent flexibility band. This is the eighth consecutive year that

Management has requested a flat real budget.

2. With the return to flat budget expenditure levels in FY13, the overarching challenge facing the Bank

remains that of delivering an expanded work program with constrained budgetary resources while

preserving the flexibility to respond to rapidly changing client needs. The current economic and

political uncertainty prevailing in many parts of the world underscores this need for flexibility.

3. Management’s response to this challenge is to focus on increasing budget flexibility, work program

selectivity, and operational and organizational effectiveness. These elements were discussed in the

MTBF and are addressed at various points in this document.

4. The main feature underpinning the proposed budget is the allocation of some $45 million to three

priority areas:

Responding to important economic and political developments in North Africa, Sub‐Saharan

Africa, and Eastern Europe;

Business modernization, including open data and knowledge governance, and reducing sector

manager span of control; and

Specific corporate priorities, such as support to countries affected by fragility and conflict, and

strengthening implementation and operational quality.

5. These budgetary allocations are funded by existing uncommitted budgetary resources;

redeployments from the Network Anchors, DEC, and WBI; reductions to the Knowledge and

Learning Council (KLC) budget, and additional resources from Trust Fund Fees, and targeted expense

reductions.

6. This document represents the culmination of a year long conversation between Management and

the Board of Executive Directors. A number of important and enduring issues were prominent in

that conversation, including selectivity, operational quality, integration of Bank‐Executed Trust Fund


‐ 2 ‐

(BETF) use into budget and business planning processes, and crisis preparedness. Additional issues

reviewed with Executive Directors during the MTBF discussion included decentralization costs,

enhancing corporate budget flexibility, and budget sustainability. All of these issues, and others, are

addressed in this document.

7. This document is structured as follows:

Sub‐Section 1.2 sets out the FY13 Budget recommendations for consideration by Executive

Directors.

Section 2 reviews progress in revamping the corporate budget and business planning process,

including Board engagements and regular corporate performance reporting. This section also takes

stock of the main issues identified in this year’s planning cycle and provides updates on

Management’s decisions and planned next steps.

Section 3 describes the individual components that comprise the FY13 Budget recommendations,

and discusses the corporate budgetary allocations that will be supported by the FY13 Budget.

Annexes provide additional technical and other background information relevant to the overall

budget framework and recommendations.

1.2 FY13 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

8. Management seeks Board approval of the following FY13 Budget recommendations (in $FY13):

That the net administrative budget be set at $1,870.8 million, to be managed within a range of

+/‐ 2 percent, including a price adjustment factor of 2.58 percent ($47.1 million).

That Board‐related FY13 funding comprise:1

o An indicative budget of $76.5 million for Executive Directors using a preliminary price factor based on Washington‐Baltimore Consumer Price Index. The price factor will be adjusted subsequently to reflect the decisions of the Joint Committee on Remuneration and approval by the Board of Governors; and

o $14.2 million for Board of Governors, Development Committee, and Inspection Panel,

o of which $23.0 million are reimbursables; and

o $15.6 million for the Corporate Secretariat.

That the Grant‐Making Facilities be funded as follows:

o $50 million for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR);

o $56.2 million for the Development Grant Facility (DGF);

o Up to $33.3 million for the State and Peace Building Fund (SPF);

1 The Independent Evaluation Group’s (IEG) budget is subject to a separate Board approval process, in which IEG is proposing a budget of $33.2 million (FY12$), including $7.4 million of reimbursables and a one‐time allocation of $0.7 million.


‐ 3 ‐

o Up to $16.5 million for the Institutional Development Fund (IDF); and

o $5 million for the Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA).2

Creation of a set‐aside for financial remedy income. Management recommends that funds

received as financial remedy over FY12 and FY13 be initially placed in a set‐aside pending

separate Board approval of the eventual disbursement mechanism.

That $319.7 million be contributed to the Staff Retirement and related Plans;

That $38.2 million be provided to the proposed Post‐Retirement Contribution Reserve (subject

to Board approval of the establishment of the Reserve).

That the capital budget be set at $171.1 million.

2 The GPSA facility has been approved “in principle” and will be discussed at the Board on June 12, 2012. Approval of the budget recommendation is subject to Board approval of the facility.


‐ 4 ‐

2. A REFLECTION ON THE FY13‐15 BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS AND BOARD

DISCUSSIONS

This section reviews the ongoing changes to the Bank’s budget and business planning process, together

with refinements to the four points of engagement with the Board and to regular corporate performance

reporting. It also provides a recapitulation of the main issues identified in this year’s conversation with

Executive Directors and Management’s plans to address them over the coming year.

2.1 REVAMPING THE BUDGET AND BUSINESS PLANNING PROCESS AND BOARD ENGAGEMENTS

9. The ongoing revision of the Bank’s business planning approach began in early FY11. The main

objective is to strengthen the strategic focus of planning discussions and increase budget flexibility

over time, with five overlapping and mutually supporting goals:

i. Move to a holistic budgeting process that is more grounded in results and based on work

program needs.

To gain a better understanding of how resources are used across units and work programs,

Management has placed greater emphasis on identifying and discussing current issues in

managing the institution. The main instruments facilitating this revised process are 3‐year

business plans for units, and more structured conversations between Senior Management

and Vice Presidents. Last year’s Medium‐Term Strategy and Finance (MTSF) and this year’s

Medium‐Term Business and Finance (MTBF) papers reported on the outcome of these

discussions and how they informed the subsequent budget frameworks.

A challenge for Management is to ensure that the process is as streamlined as possible, and

that it meshes well with the units’ own planning cycle as well as that of the Board.

ii. Place greater emphasis on thematic cross‐cutting issues, as opposed to a purely VPU‐centric

approach, to improve work program alignment across the Bank.

The focus of the internal process over the past two years has been on cross‐cutting issues

identified on the basis of unit business plan reviews and corporate center analytics.

Providing a space for a more structured conversation between Senior Management and Vice

Presidents has given a stronger basis on which to make final budget allocation

recommendations.

iii. Reinforce accountability for the use of resources through regular performance reviews to

monitor progress in implementing business plans.

All units will ultimately have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreed with Senior

Management. MOUs were piloted by the Regional VPUs in FY12 and performance

conversations around key indicators took place through the ABCD process.


‐ 5 ‐

Drawing on early lessons from the Regional exercise, Management is reviewing the

structure and framework of the MOU for further improvement. The emphasis is on

streamlining the document, including the number of performance metrics, to facilitate a

more targeted evaluation of performance. Consistency and alignment with the Bank’s

Corporate Scorecard is also being assessed (see Box 2.1). Findings are informing the

updates of the Regional MOUs, and the development of MOUs for Network Anchors, which

will be in place for FY13. MOUs for Finance, Administrative, and Corporate units (FAC) will

be developed for FY14.

iv. Implement greater transparency in budget allocations through a more open and engaging

process with the Board, Management, and staff.

The revised process has resulted in much more involvement by Vice Presidents in business

planning discussions with Senior Management. Management has also endeavored to

increase the level of candor in Board engagements and to strengthen the focus on issues of

concern. Feedback from Executive Directors has been positive.

The new internal budget transparency website provides extensive information on the

budget process and outcomes. This needs to be accompanied by strengthened outreach to

units by the corporate center to explain the Bank’s budget context, its process and the

outcomes. Annex E provides more details.

Box 2.1: A Window on Results

The Corporate Scorecard is designed to provide a snapshot of the Bank’s overall performance in the context

of development results. It is a public document, but it also facilitates strategic dialogue between

Management and the Board on progress made and areas that need attention. The Corporate Scorecard uses

an integrated results and performance framework consisting of a four‐tier structure that groups indicators

along the results chain.

Internally, the Corporate Scorecard is being enhanced with drill‐down capabilities. It will be complemented

with MOUs between Senior Management and VPUs, in which units identify their strategic objectives (Tier 1

and 2) in line with corporate priorities and commit to a set of performance indicators (Tier 3 and 4) capturing

the effectiveness and efficiency of work program delivery. The indicator selection and improvements sought

in targeted areas are informed by ongoing business planning and performance conversations between Senior

Management and Vice Presidents.

Together, the Corporate Scorecard and the MOUs form the next steps in increasing the emphasis on results

and performance in the corporate level budget and business planning process.


‐ 6 ‐

v. Simplify and rationalize the management of institutional support services.

Several process improvement initiatives of particular relevance to the budget process are

currently underway as part of the Bank’s business modernization – e.g., centralizing and

ring‐fencing IT depreciation, and simplifying chargeback. Annex E describes these budget‐

related process improvements.

10. The biggest challenge for the FY14‐16 cycle will be to avoid process overload, particularly at the

corporate center. FAC units were originally slated for their first “deep dive” business plans as part

of the revamped process; Regions, having had an “off year” this cycle, are scheduled to produce

detailed plans for FY14‐16; and while Network Anchors, the World Bank Institute (WBI) and the

Development Economics (DEC) unit were intended to have a light process, the unfinished business

discussed in the MTBF (e.g., refining Network Anchor accountabilities) combined with the budget

reductions proposed in this paper, suggest that they too will be subject to an intense process next

cycle. Management will reflect over the summer on how to best respond to this challenge.

11. In parallel to the changes in the internal process, refinements have been made to the four points

of engagement with the Board and quarterly corporate reporting has been improved.

To support a more integrated picture of planning issues early on in the conversation with the

Board, and provide more information on work program selectivity, Management introduced

several changes to the content and timing of this year’s engagement points. The previous first

two engagements were combined into one, the Baseline and Emerging Directions paper. At the

same time, the twelve Regional, Network Anchor, WBI, and DEC Updates were incorporated into

the second engagement point to inform the Board at the operational unit level on the strategic

context of priorities and work program choices and trade‐offs that guide resource allocation

decisions.

Executive Directors appreciated these changes while identifying areas requiring further

improvement – in regard to timing as well as content. Management has agreed to advance the

timing of the operational updates, to better synchronize with related internal business planning

discussions and Board engagements. Management will also reflect on the Board’s views on

content, while recognizing the risk of overloading the updates, and come back to the issue in the

fall.

To streamline and align Management’s quarterly reporting to the Board, a number of Board

reports have been consolidated into the Quarterly Business and Risk Review (QBRR). This new

reporting framework is based on the Corporate Scorecard and aims to provide greater clarity

and a more comprehensive view of Bank performance.

2.2 MAIN ISSUES IN THIS YEAR’S BUDGET CYCLE

12. This year’s budget conversation with the Board focused on four main issues, all of which will likely

continue to feature in next year’s conversation.


‐ 7 ‐

i. Selectivity – A recurring concern of the Board, and of Management.

As highlighted in previous documents, work program selectivity results from an interaction

between client countries and the Bank – consistent with the institution’s country‐based

engagement framework. At the same time, this dialogue with client countries takes place in

the context of the Bank’s existing framework of corporate priorities.

Consistent with this approach to selectivity, the Board has sought a clearer understanding of

the choices and trade‐offs that are made at the operational level. In response, the

corporate guidance provided to the Regions and Network Anchors on their FY12 Updates

asked that they specifically address selectivity in their business planning and highlight the

choices they are making to support client needs and implement the Bank’s strategic

priorities within their existing work program funding.

While Executive Directors were generally satisfied with the information provided in Regional

Updates, they felt that Network presentations were uneven in this regard. They specifically

asked that future updates be more candid on the challenges faced in being selective.

At the corporate level, limited institutional budget flexibility has required Management to

make difficult choices as well. As discussed in the MTBF, and elaborated on in Section 3,

savings and redeployments across units have been identified to supplement pre‐existing

budget head room (or flexibility) and provide additional funding in support of specific

corporate priorities.

ii. Quality – Many Executive Directors have been concerned over the impact of constrained

budgetary resources in combination with enhanced work program demands on the quality of

Bank operations.

Maintaining operational quality under sustained work program demands and constrained

budgetary resources is critical to the Bank’s effectiveness. The recent decline in operational

quality indicators is therefore a cause for concern.

In the FY13‐15 Baseline and Emerging Directions paper Management noted its view that the

main question concerns how well existing budgetary resources are being allocated. The

demands resulting from the global economic and commodity price crises over the past few

years have clearly strained the Bank’s limited resources. It should be recalled, however, that

in response to the crises real budgetary expenditures increased by 4.7 percent in FY10 over

FY09, and will remain 2.7 percent over FY09 in FY13 when budgetary expenditures return to

the flat real line.

The MTBF indicated that some factors in the recent decline in portfolio quality ratings may

have been insufficient technical support to operational teams, inadequate flow of technical

knowledge from Networks to Regions, and the broad span of control of sector managers. A

contributing element may also have been managerial decisions on resource allocation, in

particular in regard to the budgets of Regional Sector Management Units (SMUs). The paper

outlined how Management was addressing each of these elements, and this year’s budget


‐ 8 ‐

proposal tackles a number of them (e.g., $10 million to the SMUs to, among other things,

strengthen operational quality).

While Executive Directors generally welcomed the various measures proposed by

Management, many remained concerned with the issue. Some continued to request an

assessment of the impact of the flat real budget constraint. Some sought a better

understanding of the effects of Human Resources (HR) policies on quality, including the

growing use of renewable term appointments. One Executive Director cautioned against

adding new layers of procedures to existing ones.

A number of measures aimed at strengthening operational quality will be implemented

during FY13. These build largely on the investment lending reform initiative and the

framework for accountability and decision‐making, which requires clear definition of roles,

purposes, and follow‐up for each key decision point. The strengthened quality assurance

measures focus on the clarification of accountabilities in the decision‐making processes

throughout the project cycle:

o Enhancing mechanisms for technical quality inputs at project design and during

implementation. A clear mandate has been given to the Network Anchors to

facilitate access to technical quality expertise, including by improving the

organization of peer reviews and provision of technical input by the full Network.

o Strengthening quality monitoring and reporting at the corporate level. This will be

based on a more systematic aggregation and validation of team self‐assessments

throughout implementation. It will fill the current gap between quality support and

assurance at entry, which is carried out by the Regions, and the evaluation ratings at

exit produced by IEG. This approach will ensure that there are more timely

management signals on quality during project implementation, when changes can

still be made to positively affect outcomes.

An Executive Director’s Seminar on this renewed approach is planned for June 20, 2012.

iii. Trust Fund Reform ‐ Instituting policies and processes to better integrate Trust Funds into work

program and business planning.

There is a broad expectation among Executive Directors of continued progress in

implementing the Trust Fund reform road map, including in regard to strengthened

oversight by Senior Management and the Board. In the FY13‐15 Baseline and Emerging

Directions paper, Management indicated that improvements to Bank‐Executed Trust Funds

(BETFs) would focus on (i) further integration with budget planning and (ii) stronger analysis

of BETF use and associated staffing implications.

The MTBF paper devoted a full section to BETFs. It discussed some of the drivers of the

strong growth in work program funding that the Bank has seen from this source over the

past years. The paper also highlighted progress in better managing the institution’s use of

BETFs – particularly in the areas of governance, alignment and cost recovery – with an


‐ 9 ‐

analysis of the composition of BETF disbursements through three specific lenses. While the

section concluded that BETFs are, for the most part, consistent with Bank strategies, it also

identified a number of areas requiring continued or additional Management attention,

including ensuring that Bank strategies drive the work program (of both Bank budget and

BETFs), reviewing the role of BETFs in financing the preparation and supervision of non‐co‐

financed IBRD/IDA projects, and work programming across all funding sources.

The issue of BETF use to fund a portion of the Bank’s work program was prominent in the

Board discussion of the MTBF. Executive Directors supported continued dialogue with

Management on BETFs, and agreed that work should proceed on the issues identified in the

paper. Additional points of concern to at least several Executive Directors included:

o Potential vulnerability to an unanticipated, sharp downturn in donor contributions to

Trust Funds – with concerns centered on the implications for knowledge work and

areas/activities the Bank would do less of;

o Defining the proportion of work program funding by BETFs that may be considered too

high; and

o The need to have a common view of what constitutes core work in the Bank, and

whether or not BETFs should be used for such activity.

Management intends to continue the dialogue with the Board on BETFs over the next

budget cycle, and will respond to the concerns identified in the MTBF discussion.

iv. Crisis preparedness will remain a priority over the FY13‐15 period – to assure the Bank has

capacity to respond to possible increases in client demand resulting from unexpected external

events.

Management and units are taking steps to ensure programs and instruments as well as

funding and organizational effectiveness will support any needed crisis response.

At the corporate level, instruments such as IDA’s Crisis‐Response Window and Immediate

Response Mechanism, and IBRD’s Exposure Management Framework allow the Bank to

respond quickly should emergencies arise. Management has also discussed with the Board

the possibility of an Enhanced Access Facility for IBRD borrowers on flexible terms with

respect to pricing and maturities.

The upper two percent of the budget flexibility band is accessible should the need arise due

to a significant economic downturn, or emergence of a new global crisis affecting our

clients. In addition, a corporate contingency will be maintained for within‐year use over the

FY13‐15 planning cycle – set at $5.0 million in FY13, $7.5 million in FY14, and $10.0 million in

FY15 – particularly to help the Regions respond more effectively to unforeseen events.

The MTBF paper highlighted the main work program areas linked to crisis preparedness and

summarized the various actions undertaken and instruments used by Regions and Network

Anchors to strengthen their crisis response capacity, and to assist clients in reducing the


‐ 10 ‐

likelihood and impact of shocks. To varying degrees, operational units outlined the actions

they are taking to strengthen their roles in assisting clients to prepare for and respond to

crises in their recent Board Updates.

The Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region, e.g., noted that past engagement – including

renewed and deeper policy dialogue in most vulnerable countries – has better equipped the

Bank to step up financial and analytical support in response to spillovers from the ongoing

Euro zone crisis. Other dimensions include ongoing and planned technical assistance,

including crisis monitoring; flexibility to top up Development Policy Loans (DPLs) and credit

lines; and closer engagement with the European Commission, the International Monetary

Fund (IMF), and other partners on crisis response.

The East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region is helping client countries become more resilient to

natural disasters, and to respond when they happen. A key feature in responding to

disasters is rapid access to post‐disaster liquidity – through Catastrophe Deferred Draw

Down Options, as well as rapid post‐disaster contingent financing components in

operations.

During their discussion of the MTBF paper, Executive Directors focused on the need for the

Bank to increase budget flexibility. This was considered critical for two reasons – to fund an

adequate contingency for intra‐year use and to provide scope for allocations to key

corporate priorities in the budget itself.

Management agrees with the Board on the need to restore budget flexibility, and provides

more information on context and suggested approaches in Annex A.

13. In addition to these four issues, Executive Directors stressed a number of other points during the

MTBF discussion.

Management and the Board agreed to further review the costs and benefits of

decentralization. The MTBF featured a discussion of decentralization costs, emphasizing

the need for a more tailored approach. Management committed to refining the current

costing methodology by the end of the calendar year and implementing a tailored approach

to decisions affecting work location in order to more consistently consider costs and

benefits.

Management and the Board agreed that any mechanism designed to increase corporate

budget flexibility, such as the old “productivity tax,” should avoid penalizing the most

vulnerable client countries. As discussed further in Section 3, the main purpose of such a

measure will be to return budget room to the corporate center every year. Management

intends to build clear incentives into the system which will drive efficiency without

penalizing work in difficult environments.


‐ 11 ‐

3. FY13‐15 BUDGET FRAMEWORK

This section sets out the details of the FY13 budget recommendation, explaining the rationale for the

proposed use of available budget room and resource reallocations.

3.1 SUMMARY OF THE FY13 ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET PROPOSAL AND EXPECTED EXTERNAL

FUNDING

14. With the return to flat real budget expenditure levels in FY13, the challenge continues to be how to

deliver an expanded work program, while preserving the flexibility to respond to rapidly changing

client needs within a constrained resource envelope. Management’s response to this challenge is to

focus on increasing budget flexibility, work program selectivity, and operational and organizational

effectiveness.

15. The proposed FY13 budget and work program supports the Bank’s core business and maintains

some room for contingencies. Table 3.1 summarizes the main components of the proposed budget

and the rest of this section provides further detail on each budget item. Unit and program resource

envelopes are set out in Annex B.

16. To implement the work program along the key priorities and parameters endorsed by Executive

Directors, Management seeks approval of a FY13 net administrative budget that is flat in real terms,

consistent with Board guidance to return to flat real budget spending by FY13. In nominal terms,

the net administrative budget will increase by around $47.1 million (2.6 percent) after the

application of the Board‐approved price factor methodology (Table 3.2).

17. Taking into account “below‐the‐line” items, the total administrative budget will increase in

nominal terms by 4.7 percent ($111.8 million) to $2,499.7 million. Including reimbursables and

Bank‐Executed Trust Funds, total funds will grow by 5.2 percent to $3,513.3 million.


‐ 12 ‐

FY12 Budget FY13 Budget Change % Change

Net Admin Budget Net Admin Budget in FY12$1 1,823.3 1,823.7 0.4 0.0%

Price increase 47.1 47.1

Net Admin Budget ($Nominal) 1,823.3 1,870.8 47.5 2.6%

Memo: Board‐approved expenditure range +/‐2% +/‐2% 0.0

Below‐the‐line items Budget for Boards , SEC, IEG (FY12$) 2/ 104.3 107.5 3.2 3.0%

Board , SEC and IEG price increase 2.5 2.5

Contribution to Staff Reti rement Accounts 299.4 357.9 58.5 19.5%

Grant Faci l i ties (DGF, SPF, IDF, GPSA, CGIAR) 161.0 161.0 0.0 0.0%

Total Admin Budget Sum of NAB and below‐the‐l ine i tems 2,387.9 2,499.7 111.8 4.7%

External Funds Bank‐Executed Trust Funds (BETFs) 621.8 660.2 38.4 6.2%

Total Reimbursables 331.1 353.4 22.3 6.7%

Total Funds Total Admin Budget and External Funds 3,340.9 3,513.3 172.4 5.2%1 Transfer of budget from Boards, SEC and IEG to EXT and IMT of $0.4 million. These transfers from below‐the‐line to above‐the‐

line items explain the difference in net administrative budget from FY12 to FY13 in FY12$ . 2 Board budget of $107.5 million in FY13 is net of reimbursables. IEG includes $0.7 million one‐time allocation.

Box 3.1: Presentation of Bank Resources in the Budget Document

The Board approves the net administrative budget for the IBRD/IDA work program, i.e., the portion of the Bank’s

work program funded by IBRD and IDAs’ own resources.

However, the Bank also receives resources from two other sources:

Reimbursables are revenues generated when the Bank provides operational and/or administrative services to

external organizations and/or parties (such as staff), or shares administrative costs through negotiated cost‐

sharing arrangements. The term includes income from Fee‐Based Services as well as fee income received by the

Bank for administering Trust Funds. The Bank also receives reimbursements for services provided to staff (e.g.,

personal trip or personal phone call reimbursements, parking).

Trust Funds are donor contributions held and accounted for separately from WBG assets. The World Bank

categorizes Trust Funds into two groups, IBRD/IDA Trust Funds and Financial Intermediary Funds. IBRD/IDA

Trust Funds, where the Bank plays an implementing role, can be used in the form of Recipient‐Executed Trust

Funds (RETFs) or Bank‐Executed Trust Funds (BETFs). BETFs complement the Bank’s administrative budget to

deliver knowledge services, lending and supervision (primarily of RETFs), and administrative costs of managing

Trust Funds. BETFs are administered in accordance with the provisions of the Bank’s Administrative Manual,

which also applies to the Bank’s administrative budget.

This year’s Budget document presents the Program Cost Summary table in a new format (Annex B) which

improves the integration and presentation of these sources of funding.

Table 3.1: FY12/13 Budget and Total Funds Summary ($ million)


‐ 13 ‐

3.2 THE NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET

18. The net administrative budget is the portion of the Bank’s work program that is funded by IBRD and

IDA resources. The MTBF described the Bank’s overall approach to work program budgeting at the

corporate level. It noted that the normal budgeting process is incremental rather than zero‐based.

As the Bank’s work programs are multi‐year and based on a long‐term engagement with clients,

there is an inherent degree of budget stability from year to year. Changing priorities and shifts in

the Bank’s strategic approach are, however, evident in unit budgets over the longer term.

19. Each year’s planning cycle builds on the three‐year budget allocations agreed in the previous year.

At the heart of the planning cycle is a structured conversation between Senior Management and

Vice Presidents on business planning challenges and issues, which is informed by unit business plans

and corporate analytics. This conversation enables Senior Management to identify particular issues

related to the effectiveness and efficiency of the overall work program, as well as to come to a view

on the appropriateness of the overall distribution of the Bank’s net administrative budget in the

context of the institution’s evolving work program and priorities.

20. This year, the 12 Regional and Network Anchor Updates to the Board and the MTBF reported on unit

priorities and approaches to selectivity, and on the main issues in this year’s internal corporate

planning conversation. The main themes of the internal conversation were:

Enhancing regional work program flexibility. Regions account for over 60 percent of the net

administrative budget, and the main source of the Bank’s work program flexibility comes from

the Regional units making trade‐offs and exercising selectivity in their work programs. Among

the elements identified as limiting Regional flexibility in recent years are the significant scale‐up

in lending in response to global crises, combined with continued decentralization and a focus on

fiduciary and safeguard controls. While these issues are being addressed in the context of the

Bank’s business modernization (e.g., Investment Lending reform, and staff mobility in country

offices), Senior Management concluded that more resources needed to be allocated to Regional

Sector Management Units (SMUs), which deliver the bulk of country client products and

services. Increases in Regional budgets over the last five years have not translated into

proportional increases in SMU budgets.

Increasing Network Anchor effectiveness. While Network Anchors have made significant

progress in increasing their effectiveness in recent years, this year’s planning process identified

areas that need further improvements and management attention – developing analytical tools

to help size Network Anchor budgets; building the new Network Anchor Accountability

Framework into business management approaches and systems; and developing institutional

principles for engaging in and disengaging from partnerships. Work is underway to address all

three areas.

21. Since FY95, the Bank’s net administrative budget has gone through a number of cycles of expansion

and contraction – by the end of FY13, it will be approximately 4 percent higher in real terms than it


‐ 14 ‐

was in FY95. The budget has increased by an average of 3.3 percent a year in nominal terms, and

0.3 percent a year in real terms using the Bank’s price deflator. Bearing in mind the expansion of the

Bank’s mandate and work program over the period, this is a significant achievement.

Since FY06, Management and the Board have agreed to keep the net administrative budget flat in

real terms, to be managed within a band of +/‐ 2 percent. In FY10, to support the Bank's response

to the global financial and economic crisis, the Board approved pre‐programming use of the upper

portion of the flexibility band to create set‐asides for targeted scale‐up and within‐year adjustments

of the work program where needed. The Board also made an additional 2 percent of flexibility

available, but this was not used. As agreed with the Executive Directors, since the peak of the

Bank’s crisis response in FY10, Management has been steadily reducing spending to return to the

zero line of the flexibility band by FY13 (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Net Administrative Budget Utilization FY06‐FY15

‐3%

‐2%

‐1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Actual Spending Projected Spending


‐ 15 ‐

3.3 REALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE PROPOSED FY13 NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET

22. As discussed in the MTBF, Management’s corporate budget decision‐making process has four

conceptual strands:

i. Assessing budget flexibility available at the beginning of the budget allocation process;

ii. Scoping potential funding requirements;

iii. Considering the availability of resources to fund requirements; and

iv. An iterative reconciliation of funding requirements and resource availability.

23. The key challenge this year was to increase availability of budget resources to fund specific

corporate priorities. The FY13‐15 planning cycle began with available budget flexibility estimated at

around $15 million in FY13 and reducing to around $12 million in FY14 and FY15. Based on a review

of funding requests in unit business planning submissions, a further review of corporate priorities,

and consideration of the size of contingency required for FY13, total funding requirements were in

the order of $70‐85 million. Following an initial consideration of potential funding sources, the

iterative reconciliation resulted in a decision to fund approximately $45 million of the identified

requirements. The MTBF described this process in greater detail, including the considerations that

led Senior Management to this conclusion.

24. In brief, Management decided to allocate $45 million in additional budget to activities in three

priority areas: 1) responding to important economic and political developments (in North Africa,

Sub‐Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe); 2) business modernization, including open data and

knowledge governance and reducing sector manager span of control; and 3) specific corporate

priorities, such as support to countries affected by fragility and conflict, and strengthening

implementation and operational quality. To fund these allocations, Management supplemented the

$15.1 million in uncommitted budgetary resources with redeployments from Network Anchors, DEC,

and WBI; reductions to the Knowledge and Learning Council (KLC) budget, resources from the

projected growth in Trust Fund Fee recovery, and targeted expense cuts. Table 3.2 below provides

an overview of the uses and sources of funds.


‐ 16 ‐

Table 3.2: Sources and Uses of Funding3

CORPORATE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS

25. Details on the three priority areas identified by Senior Management are below.

i. Response to significant economic and political developments affecting client countries ($14.0

million in FY13, $19.1 million in FY14, $18.7 million in FY15).

Additional allocations will help step up Bank support for urgent crisis and client needs

principally in AFR, ECA, and MNA, including a minimal institutional contingency to respond

3 Table 5.2 in the MTBF ‐ Corporate Contingency funding was $5 million per annum; Corporate Priorities was $12.5 million in FY14 and $20 million in FY15; total FY15 Expense Cuts were shown as zero.

SOURCES AND USES FY13 FY14 FY15

USES

Economic and Political Developments in the Regions 14.0 19.1 18.7

Cris i s Events and FCS1 9.0 11.6 8.7

Corporate Contingency 5.0 7.5 10.0

Business Modernization 18.2 25.9 29.2

Regiona l SMUs' Span of Control 3.0 3.0 3.0

Open Data and Knowledge Governance 3.4 5.1 4.1

IT Investments , Global Staff Mobi l i ty, Risk, and Cl ient Surveys 11.9 17.8 22.1

Corporate Priorities – FCS, Implementation, Operational Quality 10.0 10.0 10.0

Other2 2.6 2.6 2.6

TOTAL USES 44.8 57.6 60.5

SOURCES

Avai lable Flexibi l i ty 15.0 12.0 12.0

Trust Fund Fees 3.5 5.0 8.0

Regional Fee‐Based Services3 0.0 5.0 10.0

Expense Cuts 4.0 5.0 5.0

Productivi ty Tax4 0.0 10.0 36.0

Network Anchors 12.0 12.0 12.0

DEC and WBI 2.0 2.0 2.0

Knowledge Learning Counci l (KLC) 8.0 8.0 8.0

TOTAL SOURCES 44.5 59.0 93.0

SOURCES – USES ‐0.3 1.4 32.51 Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region, Middle East and North Africa (MNA) Region ‐ Libya, Africa (AFR) Region ‐ South Sudan

2 Other includes an increase in UN Field Security Costs

3 Including Reimbursable Technical assistance Program in MNA.

4 Budget flexibility/productivity tax for FY14 and FY15 will be adjusted after the completion of work to develop an improved

methodology for the tax.


‐ 17 ‐

to unforeseen regional business needs that may arise in the course of the year. Funding will

primarily support the following:

Urgent crisis needs ($5.5 million in FY13, $8.1 million in FY14, $5.2 million in FY15).

Supplemental allocations include re‐engagement in Libya ($2.9 million in FY13 and FY14),

and for South Sudan ($2.6 million in FY13, $5.2 million in FY14 and FY15) to relieve the cost

pressures associated with the expiration of the South Sudan Multi‐Donor Trust Fund.

ECA – Euro‐zone Crisis ($3.5 million in FY13, FY14 and FY15). The worsening euro‐zone

situation could dramatically affect ECA countries through financial and trade linkages. Given

developments, overall day‐to‐day monitoring has intensified to analyze the evolving crisis

and linkages across countries and between the real and financial sectors.

Bank staff are providing technical assistance in the financial sector to help mitigate a

worsening of the situation in selected countries and are closing knowledge gaps to respond

more effectively. ECA will also be increasing lending for crisis‐related tasks, with projected

IBRD lending for FY12‐13 up from $12.2 billion to $15.8 billion.

Corporate Contingency ($5 million in FY13, $7.5 million in FY14, $10 million in FY15). In

FY13, this modest contingency will be used to help Regions address unforeseen

developments. Management initially considered a $10 million contingency for FY13, but

concluded that it was more important to direct available budget to the frontlines as early as

possible.

The need to access this contingency has materialized sooner than anticipated, with fast

moving political developments in Myanmar. Management is reviewing funding needs and

will likely use part of the $5 million corporate contingency for this purpose. See Box 3.2 for

more information on the Myanmar program.

Box 3.2: Myanmar Program

In response to Myanmar's ongoing reforms, the Bank Group is in the process of reengaging. The

preparation of an arrears clearance plan is underway in coordination with other creditors. The Bank

has begun drafting an Interim Strategy Note that will provide a strategic and operational framework

for the Bank Group which would include Analytic and Advisory Activities (AAA) in the areas of public

financial management, investment climate and the financial sector, and providing support in the areas

of livelihoods and food security.

The Region would also prepare project proposals to be funded by the State and Peace‐Building Fund

(SPF). Following the clearance of arrears it is anticipated that Myanmar would again access regular

IDA resources.


‐ 18 ‐

ii. Business Modernization ($18.2 million in FY13, $25.9 million in FY14, $29.2 million in FY15).

Allocations to business modernization will help fund initiatives on reducing the span of

control for Sector Managers, open development and data, client surveys, knowledge

measurement and governance, risk management, and enhancing the Bank’s finance and

information systems. The breakdown is as follows:

Span of Control ($3 million in FY13, FY14 and FY15). Management’s decision to limit Sector

Managers’ oversight to no more than 25‐35 staff affects four Regions. While SAR and LCR

have made internal management changes to remain within the new limits on the span of

control, additional resources are allocated to EAP ($1 million in FY13, FY14 and FY15) and

AFR ($2 million in FY13, FY14 and FY15) for additional Sector Managers to reach the target

span of control.

Open Data and Knowledge Governance ($3.35 million in FY13, $5.1 million in FY14, $4.1

million in FY15). Additional resources for DEC ($1.6 million in FY13, FY14 and FY15) are

aimed at data curation work, capacity building, and tools promoting open knowledge.

Allocations to WBI ($0.75 million in FY13 and $1.0 million FY14) support the scaling up of the

Mapping for Results initiative into areas such as incorporating beneficiary feedback

mechanisms. Allocations to OPCS ($1.0 million in FY13, $2.5 million in FY14, $2.5 million in

FY15) support the VPU’s new work program and mandates for knowledge (governance,

coding, and quality review for knowledge products) as well as the integration of the Reform

Secretariat into OPCS.

Box 3.3: Open Knowledge Repository

The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository (OKR) is the new online home specifically dedicated to the

institution’s research and knowledge products. The OKR supports the Bank’s new Open Access Policy, which

goes into effect on July 1, 2012. The World Bank is the first major international organization to implement an

open access policy and to adopt Creative Commons licensing for its research and knowledge products. This

policy builds on other recent efforts to make the Bank more open, including the Open Data Initiative and the

Access to Information policy.

More than 2,000 works from 2009‐2012 are currently available free of charge and without restrictions in this

new search‐engine friendly repository, including annual flagship publications, such as the World Development

Report, academic books and practitioner volumes, publicly disclosed Economic and Sector Work (ESW), and

2007‐2010 journal articles from the World Bank Research Observer and World Bank Economic Review.

Each work deposited is associated with rich metadata that will help generate better search results and

improve online discoverability. Anyone can distribute, reuse, and build upon the research works in the OKR,

including commercially. OKR benefits also include long‐term preservation and citation tools. The OKR will be

updated regularly with new publications and other research products. Content published prior to 2009,

datasets associated with Bank research, and translated editions will be added in future phases.


‐ 19 ‐

IT Investments, Risk, Client Survey, Global Staff Mobility ($11.9 million in FY13, $17.8

million in FY14, $22.1 million in FY15). Major allocations will go to three main IT‐related

areas: Financial Systems Renewal, Global Mobility/Consumerization of IT, and Cyber

Security. Additional details were provided in the MTBF. Allocations for the business

modernization will also support enhanced risk functions in the WBG Chief Risk Officer’s unit,

expansion of the client survey program in EXT from 20 to 47 countries, and the Global Staff

Mobility support initiative.

iii. Corporate Priorities: Specific corporate priorities, such as support to countries affected by

fragility and conflict, and strengthening implementation and operational quality.

Additional allocations will boost resources available to Sector Management Units, the Bank’s

primary units for the delivery of services to country clients. Regional VPUs are currently

developing proposals on how to invest these funds. As resources are limited, allocations will

need careful prioritization to ensure they have a meaningful impact.

FUNDING SOURCES

26. Existing corporate budget flexibility, redeployments, reductions, and savings will be used to fund the

priority activities discussed above. Details on each source follow below.

27. As noted above, available budget flexibility at the beginning of the planning cycle was approximately

$15 million in FY13 and $12 million in FY14 and FY15. Flexibility has been constrained by the

combination of increasing work programs and the planned return to flat real net administrative

spending by FY13. A discussion of budget flexibility and steps to increase it over the medium term is

included in Annex A.

28. Redeployments from Network Anchors, DEC and WBI total $14 million. These reductions are being

made to unit envelopes that were already on a declining trajectory. Total planned real budget

reduction for the six units over FY11‐14 was 4.6 percent. In discussions following the MTBF, it was

agreed that the Network Anchors would absorb $12 million of the reduction to support Regional

SMUs, with the remaining $2 million coming from DEC and WBI.

29. As work to develop an analytical approach to inform the sizing of the Network Anchors is still at an

early stage as discussed in the MTBF, the distribution of the $12 million reduction across the four

Network Anchors was largely determined on a pro rata basis, modified to take into account

differential access to BETFs. The distribution of the reductions will be: SDN $4.90 million, FPD $2.99

million, HDN $2.44 million and PREM $1.67 million. For DEC and WBI, the $2 million reduction was

distributed on a pro rata basis, resulting in reductions of $1.01 million for DEC and $0.99 million for

WBI. See Box 3.4 for a brief description of the approaches units are taking to handle the proposed

cuts.


‐ 20 ‐

30. Reductions to the Knowledge and Learning Council (KLC) budget are being re‐allocated to

knowledge‐related corporate priorities. KLC’s budget was planned to increase to $15.6 million by

FY13. $8.0 million of the originally planned budget is now reallocated to fund initiatives associated

with Open Data, knowledge coding, and knowledge‐based corporate priorities, all of which are part

of the knowledge agenda. The remaining $7.6 million will support ongoing KLC commitments such

as knowledge platforms (e.g., Jive, SharePoint) and technical specialists.

31. Additional resources from Trust Fund fees, Fee‐Based Services, and reductions in expenses will be

shifted to corporate priorities. Several measures were explored as detailed below:

Box 3.4: How Network Anchors, WBI and DEC are approaching the proposed budget reductions

FPD plans to obtain savings through implementing further efficiency gains (e.g., travel expenses, space reduction),

taking into account Trust Funds and cross‐support opportunities to offset staff costs, and better aligning its staff

composition and strategy. The FPD Council is currently working on identifying ways to reduce expenses, exit from

non‐priority activities, off‐shore some activities, and decrease overall staff in the Anchor over the coming 2‐3 years.

HDN has adjusted its unit budget envelopes to accommodate the reduction. For those with a high fixed cost ratio,

the budget reduction will translate into staffing adjustments/reductions. Rigorous strategic staffing reviews by

sector are currently underway to identify potential rotations for staff and positions that can be eliminated.

Additional strategic staffing reviews will identify skills and talents needed by the overall Network (in each Sector) in

three years and ways to achieve the required skills mix. The HD Council met on May 17 to discuss the implications

of budget reduction for the HDN Anchor and its staffing. The FY13 HDN Anchor budget and work program is being

reviewed by the respective Sector Boards to ensure that allocations are strategic, relevant and results‐oriented and

will be presented to the HD Council for its concurrence in mid‐June.

PREM has been reviewing its work program in light of its reduced budget. The unit is working towards a lower

staffing contingent using a strategic review of its current staffing based on business priorities and regional demands

for cross‐support. In addition, the unit plans to restrict travel and keep STC recruitments to a minimum in FY13

while it is making the necessary structural adjustments aimed at reducing fixed costs.

SDN is assessing scope to work differently across the Network and to revise the depth and pace of implementation

of individual sector strategies. Cross‐cutting frameworks and action plans will drive greater use of integrated

solutions and approaches to program delivery, eliminating free standing and isolated products. The Anchor expects

to exit from particular business lines where sustainable capacity now exists within the Regions to drive program

implementation, or where there is insufficient capacity to deliver innovative, high impact knowledge and

communications services. Explicit use will be made of the new Network Accountabilities Framework to ensure that

deployment of resources in the Anchor is focused on where it can add most value.

DEC aims to rationalize its engagement in selected areas. This will be achieved through a combination of hiring

freezes on select positions and by replacing higher level staff, where feasible, with staff at lower levels. Lower

priority non‐core and administrative functions will be reduced.

WBI plans to: (i) make tough choices on consolidation and reprioritization of programs that continue to be in

demand (e.g., Trade and Integration, Immersive Learning, Cities and Carbon, Climate Smart Agriculture); and (ii)

gain efficiencies by reducing the planned fixed cost ratio.


‐ 21 ‐

Trust Fund Fees ($3.5 million in FY13, $5.0 million in FY14, $8.0 million in FY15). Changes in the

fee schedule for IBRD/IDA Trust Funds were introduced in April 2011. The new fee scale will

improve cost recovery by an estimated $23 million over the medium‐term, depending on donor

contributions. CFP has launched a study to explore further simplification of fees. This work is

being closely coordinated with CFR, CTR, and other units, and should be completed this calendar

year. In line with current practice, donors will be consulted during the review. In the short‐

term, indirect cost recovery rates will be updated and overall recovery trends better reflected in

the budget framework.

Fee‐Based Services4 (to generate about $5.0 million in FY14, and $10.0 million in FY15). The

proposed FY13‐15 budget framework anticipates increased reimbursements from Fee‐Based

Services in the outer years, with a view to improve the net budget balance. However, as stated

by several Board members during the MTBF discussions, targeting increased levels of Fee‐Based

Services raises a number of issues that warrant Management attention, including: 1) providing

systems to better manage and track the Fee‐Based Services portfolio, including for budgeting

and billing; 2) ensuring full cost recovery 3) protecting the Bank’s role as an independent

knowledge provider; and 4) ensuring the sustainability of the knowledge services business

model. Opportunities for a significant ramp‐up in Fee‐Based Services revenues may be limited,

at least in the short‐term. If increases in Fee‐Based Services prove not to be achievable or

desirable, additional budget savings will need to be identified in FY14 and FY15. Since the

MTBF, several of these issues have been addressed. OPCS is finalizing a review and is expected

to recommend changes to the current Fee‐Based Services framework to ensure greater Bank‐

wide consistency. The remaining issues are still under review.

Continuation of the budget flexibility tax ($10.0 million in FY14, $36.0 million in FY15). Existing

budget flexibility/productivity tax percentages are embedded within the FY13 budgets for all

units. However, in last year’s budget process, the tax was not applied for FY14. This decision

reflected the need to advance further in revamping the budget planning process before

considering significant reallocations. Senior Management has decided to reinstitute a budget

flexibility tax for FY14 ($10 million) and FY15 ($36 million). The tax embedded last year for FY13

has not been changed. FY14 and FY15 unit level trajectory numbers shown in the Budget paper

do not reflect the application of the budget flexibility tax. They will be adjusted after the

completion of work to develop an improved methodology for the tax. A phased

reimplementation of the tax, informed by a review of its application and use since its

introduction, is anticipated. Management will address Board concerns that the tax should

provide the right incentives, which may require a more tailored approach. Management intends

to build clear incentives into the system to drive efficiency without penalizing units with most

vulnerable countries and difficult work environments.

4 Including the Reimbursable Technical Program assistance in MNA (RTA).


‐ 22 ‐

Focusing on expense lines (with the potential to free up $4.0 million in FY13, $5.0 million in

FY14 and FY15). In FY10, CFR completed a broad analysis of expense lines and services, looking

at trends, cost drivers, and the history of cost management. Opportunities for further

improvement were identified. Several initiatives have since been implemented, but some

opportunities remain including further off‐shoring, cutting the HQ lease footprint and spend on

facilities. Savings in the range of $4 million are targeted in the first year.

3.4 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY UNIT TYPE

32. Funding for the front lines prioritized. Management continues to emphasize funding for the Bank’s

country‐based work program in the FY13 budget proposal, with Regional Units’ budget plan

allocations increasing by $27.5 million compared to FY12 (Table 3.3). Network Anchor Units in

contrast face a significant decrease of $23.5 million (or 13.9 percent). Other Operational Units (DEC,

WBI, and OPCS) and Finance, Administrative and Corporate Units (FACs) will see a decrease of 2.4

percent and 0.3 percent in their respective budgets.

33. Estimates of expected growth in external funds show a different pattern, though they remain

subject to significant uncertainty. As shown in Table 3.4, current external fund projections remain

robust with an overall 4.8 percent increase in real terms ($42.5 million) for units (excluding central

accounts, below‐the‐line items, and the Global Environment Facility). Network Anchors expect the

highest growth in external funding (7.1 percent), followed by the Regions (4.6 percent), and FACs

(3.0 percent).

Regions 1 Network

AnchorsOther Ops

2 FACs All Units3

FY12 Bank Budget Plan 1,074.9 169.1 141.0 540.0 1,925.0

FY13 Bank Budget Plan4 1,102.4 145.6 137.6 538.4 1,924.0

FY13/12 Difference4 27.5 ‐23.5 ‐3.4 ‐1.6 ‐1.0

FY13/12 Percentage Change4 2.6% ‐13.9% ‐2.4% ‐0.3% ‐0.1%

1 Corporate Contingency and Corporate Priorities are included to support Regional Programs.

2 Other Operations consists of OPCS, WBI and DEC

3 All Units excludes centrally managed accounts and below‐the‐line items

4 FY13 allocations shown before remaps which primarily include cost recovery for web governance (web tax) and indicative Basic

IT Package chargebacks

Table 3.3: Change in the Bank Budget Plan by Unit Type ($FY12 million)


‐ 23 ‐

34. External sources of funds consist of two main elements:

BETFs. Most units are projecting increases in BETF spend in FY13. The increase in FPD's

BETF projection, e.g., is largely due to the establishment of new trust fund programs for:

Financial Inclusion, Competitive Industries, and Global Indicators along with the expansion

of existing global program Trust Funds. In HDN, the increase relates to the Rapid Social

Response and the Russia Education Aid for Development Trust Funds. The Global

Partnership for Education is also expected to grow following its recent replenishment. The

Trust Fund increase in HR reflects the growth in the externally‐funded staffing program and

staff costs. Since the MTBF, which projected $630 million in FY12 and $664 million in FY13

for BETFs, the unit’s have updated and on average slightly lowered their projections.

Reimbursables. Projections for reimbursables (Table 3.5 and 3.6) show 3.2 percent real

growth ($11.5 million). The Other Operational category increases from a low base due to

projected reimbursements from the Singapore Government. The Fee for Services category,

including RTA and Reserve Advisory and Management Program (RAMP), is also projected to

grow due to increases in ECA and AFR. Network Anchors expect growth with stable

revenues from program implementation, such as the Global Environment Facility and the

Montreal Protocol, and growth in the Climate Investment Fund. Treasury (TRE) anticipates a

RegionsNetwork

AnchorsOther Ops

1 FACs All Units2

FY12 External Funds 414.7 247.5 55.0 173.8 891.0

FY13 External Funds 433.9 265.0 55.5 179.1 933.5

FY13/FY12 Difference 19.2 17.5 0.5 5.3 42.5

FY13/FY12 Percentage Change 4.6% 7.1% 0.9% 3.0% 4.8%1 Other Operations consists of OPCS, WBI and DEC

2 All Units excludes centrally managed accounts, below‐the‐line items and GEF

FY12 FY13 % Change

BETFs1 621.8 650.0 4.7%

Reimbursables, of which: 333.1 344.6 3.2%

Operationa l , TF‐related 135.8 126.1 ‐7.2%

Operationa l , Fee for Service 58.8 72.7 23.6%

Other Operational 1.6 6.9 330.2%

Non‐operational 137.0 138.9 0.9%

Total External Funds 954.9 994.6 4.2%1 Includes BETFs for all Units and Central Account/GEF

Table 3.5: External Funds ($FY12 million)

Table 3.4: Change in External Funds by Unit Type ($FY12 million)


‐ 24 ‐

decline in fee income from its Pension Administration (1.8 percent FY13 in $FY12) and in its

Asset Management Program for client countries (14.8 percent in FY13 in $FY12). As a result,

in contrast to recent years when TRE reimbursables grew at a rapid pace, they will grow at

the same rate as other FACs in FY13.

35. Looking at the full work program funding, including Bank budget and external funds, overall

spending is expected to increase by approximately 1.5 percent ($41.5 million) in real terms (see

Table 3.7). This growth is concentrated in the Regions.

3.5 NON‐UNIT SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS

36. In addition to unit‐specific budgets, the net administrative budget includes several centrally‐

managed accounts that consolidate expenses not easily attributed to specific units (see Table 3.8 for

details). The presentation of non‐unit specific accounts spend will change significantly, mainly due

to budget simplification work such as the elimination of chargeback credits for the Basic IT Services

Package (estimated $67.3 million), and the remapping of Information Management and Technology

FY12 FY13 % Change

Regions 108.3 114.1 5.4%

Networks/ other Opps 40.6 43.2 6.5%

FACs1 150.2 153.8 2.5%

IEG, COGOV/SEC 30.8 29.9 ‐2.9%

Others2 3.2 3.5 ‐5.5%

Total Reimbursables 333.1 344.6 3.2%1 Includes TRE's reimbursables, regularized into Bank Budget starting FY12

2 Includes publication revenue and other income

RegionsNetwork

AnchorsOther Ops

1 FACs All Units2

FY12 All Funds 1,489.6 416.6 196.0 713.8 2,816.0

FY13 All Funds3 1,536.3 410.6 193.1 717.5 2,857.5

FY13/12 Difference3 46.7 ‐6.0 ‐2.9 3.7 41.5

FY13/12 Percentage Change3 3.1% ‐1.4% ‐1.5% 0.5% 1.5%

1 Other Operations consists of OPCS, WBI and DEC

2 All Units excludes centrally managed accounts, below‐the‐line items, ICSID, and GEF

3 FY13 allocations shown before remaps which primarily include cost recovery for web governance (web tax) and indicative Basic

IT Package chargebacks.

Table 3.7: Change in All Funds by Unit Type ($FY12 million) ‐ Budget Plan and External Funds

Table 3.6: Reimbursables by Unit Type ($FY12 million)


‐ 25 ‐

(IMT)‐related depreciation expenses ($6.5 million). However, there are also a number of

substantive (as opposed to process) changes:

37. Centrally‐managed benefits will increase due to an increase in HRS‐managed benefits ($9.3 million)

and tax benefits ($1.7 million). These increases are partially offset by increases in credits from the

benefit recovery process ($2.6 million).

The cost of the HQ Real Estate Strategy, a separate reporting line item since FY10, has decreased

from $16.3 million in FY08 and now provides a positive income flow to the Bank of $4.1 million

in FY13 following the lease of the H‐Building to the Unites States Government for a 10‐year

period starting mid‐FY13.

Non allocated savings include the anticipated increase in revenue from Trust Fund fee income

and Fee‐Based Services as well as redeployments stemming from application of the Budget

Flexibility Tax, items which have not yet been allocated to individual VPUs.

3.6 BELOW‐THE‐LINE ITEMS

BOARD‐RELATED BUDGETS

38. There are no significant changes to Board‐related budgets compared to last year (see Table 3.9 for

details). Highlights are as follows:

Following normal practice, the $74.4 million Executive Directors’ budget includes the

recommendation made by Committee on Governance and Executive Directors' Administrative

Matters and approved by the Board on April 27, 2012 for a one‐time budget allocation of $2.82

million for travel arrangements for Executive Directors and their staff to attend the 2012 Annual

Meetings in Tokyo.

FY12 FY13 Change

Staff Separation Fund 9.7 10.9 1.2

Business Continuity Plan 16.4 16.4 0.0

Institutional Programs 27.5 27.8 0.3

Centrally‐Managed Overhead & Benefits ‐178.5 ‐154.1 24.4

HQ Real Estate Strategy 16.3 ‐4.1 ‐20.4

Others1 4.4 3.5 ‐0.9

Non Allocated Savings n/a ‐3.5 n/a

Total ‐104.2 ‐103.1 1.11 Includes Funds yet to be allocated, Publication Revenue, Reimbursable Escrow and Foreign Exchange

Contingency.

Table 3.8: Non‐Unit Specific Accounts ($FY12 million Bank Budget)


‐ 26 ‐

Board of Governors, Development Committee, and Inspection Panel budgets amount to $13.9

million.

Board reimbursable budget of $22.5 million represents cost sharing arrangements with IFC,

MIGA and IMF.

The proposed FY13 budget for the Corporate Secretariat (SEC) is $15.3 million.

The proposed FY13 IEG budget covers its activities across the World Bank Group ($33.7 million).

The cost of activities pertaining to IFC and MIGA are shown as reimbursables of $7.4 million. IEG

will request a one‐time increase of $0.7 million included in the table below.

The FY13 recommended budget (in $FY13) for Executive Directors uses a preliminary price factor

based on the Washington‐Baltimore CPI. The price factor will be subsequently adjusted to

reflect the decisions of the Joint Committee on Remuneration and approval by the Board of

Governors.

STAFF‐RETIREMENT AND RELATED PLANS

39. Using the Pension Finance Committee’s approved rates for FY13, contributions to the Staff

Retirement Plan ($193.4 million), the Retired Staff Benefits Plans ($72.3 million), and the Post

Employment Benefits plan ($54.1 million) are expected to increase to an estimated total of $319.7

million in FY13 (representing 31.27 percent of net salaries), compared to $299 million in FY12. FY13

allocations are based on the funding methodology ‐ first applied in FY11 ‐ which involves the use of a

five‐year asset averaging method and a hybrid funding method that includes 10 years of expected

staff hires in the valuation model. The FY13 allocations are $33.3 million lower than the estimated

$353.0 million cited in the MTBF. The decrease reflects the lower contribution rates from the latest

actuarial valuation, resulting from favorable participant experience during 2011.

FY12 FY13 % Change

EDs tota l 71.7 74.4 3.7%

Board of Governors 8.5 8.5 0.0%

DC Secretariat 1.9 1.9 0.0%

Inspection Panel 3.5 3.5 0.0%

Total: EDs, Board of Gov, DC Secretariat and Inspection Panel 85.6 88.3 3.1%

SEC 16.3 15.3 ‐6.1%

IEG 33.1 33.7 1.9%

Board, SEC Reimbursables ‐23.3 ‐22.5 ‐3.6%

IEG Reimbursables ‐7.3 ‐7.4 1.2%

Total 104.3 107.5 3.1%

Table 3.9: Board‐Related Budgets ($FY12 million)


‐ 27 ‐

40. In March 2012, Management discussed with the Audit and Budget Committees the establishment of

a Post‐Retirement Contribution Reserve Fund (PCRF). As a result of these discussions, Management

plans to recommend the establishment of such a fund. The budgetary contribution rate for the Staff

retirement and related plans would normally be the amount recommended by the Pension Finance

Committee (PFC). For FY13, the PFC recommended rate is 31.27 percent. However, subject to

Board approval of the establishment of the PCRF, Management is recommending that the budgetary

contribution rate be 35 percent. This will result in an increase of $38 million in budgetary pension

contributions, bringing the total to $357.9 million, which is $4.9 million higher than originally

estimated in MTBF. This additional $38 million would go into the PCRF.

GRANT‐MAKING FACILITIES

41. Management proposes that overall budget allocations for Grant‐Making Facilities remain flat in

FY13 and beyond (see Table 3.10). Grant‐Making Facility allocations in FY13 are in line with MTBF

projections. As described in the recent Board paper on Grant‐Making Facilities, reallocations from

the Institutional Development Fund (IDF) and the Development Grant Facility (DGF) will cover the

funds needed for the new Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) facility. 5 The State

and Peace Building Fund (SPF) and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR) allocations remain unchanged from FY12.

42. For the Institutional Development Fund (IDF), Management plans to allocate $16.5 million for FY13.

43. The Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) is a new fund that will have consistent

goals with the Civil Society Fund (CSF), which will be closed. Broadly, the new Fund will contribute

to country‐level governance reforms and improved service delivery by strengthening the capacity

and sustainability of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) at global, regional, and local levels to

implement social accountability programs. The Bank’s $5 million funding will come from the $2.8

million allocated to CSF in FY12 and $1.1 million each from IDF and DGF. The GPSA facility has been

“approved in principle” and will be discussed by the Board on June 12, 2012. The budget

recommendation is predicated on Board approval. The specific scope, role, focus and governance

framework of GPSA are being worked on by stakeholders.

44. For the State and Peace‐Building Fund (SPF), Management proposes to allocate up to $33.3 million

in FY13. The $100 million multi‐donor fund’s goal of strengthening state and local governance in

fragile and conflict‐affected situations (FCS) is aligned with the Bank’s current strategic focus.

45. Management is proposing $56.2 million in funding to the Development Grant Facility (DGF). In

FY09, DGF made a commitment to the Board to shift funding from Long‐Term Programs to Short‐

5 On April 6, 2012, Executive Directors approved in principle the proposed introduction of the GPSA by repurposing the current Civil Society Fund expected for FY13‐16, and the adoption of the Resolution to establish the Multi‐Donor Trust Fund (MDTF). The final meeting is taking place on June 12, 2012 after this paper has been submitted to SEC for distribution. See also the President’s Memorandum in Global Partnership for Social Accountability and Establishment of a Multi‐Donor Trust Fund, (R2012‐0063/1), May 18, 2012.


‐ 28 ‐

Term Programs. DGF is continuing to rebalance its portfolio and expects short‐term program

financing to be more than 50 percent in FY13.

46. Management is proposing to allocate $50.0 million to the Consultative Group on International

Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CGIAR’s work, funded by the Bank since 1971, is well aligned with

the institution’s priorities. The Bank currently ranks third among the 65 contributors to CGIAR.

47. Creation of a set‐aside for financial remedy income. To ensure a consistent and transparent

application of financial remedies as a component of the Bank’s Sanctions Regime, there is a need to

establish an effective mechanism for collecting and administering these funds. Management is

currently developing such a proposal for Board approval.

48. As the income received through the Sanctions Regime is not available for allocation to uses other

than to provide restitution and/or support governance and anti‐corruption related activities in Bank

client countries, Management recommends that funds received as financial remedy during FY12 and

FY13 be initially placed in a set‐aside. The set‐aside will be disbursed into the agreed mechanism

following its approval by the Board.

49. As the set‐aside is funded out of the financial remedy income, it will have no impact on the overall

envelope for Grant‐Making Facilities. Management anticipates that the use of the financial remedy

income will be discussed in each year’s Budget Document and submitted for Board approval as part

of the overall budget framework.


‐ 29 ‐

3.7 PRICE FACTOR

50. Applying the Board‐approved methodology, the price adjustment factor for FY13 is 2.58 percent

(to be applied to FY12 net administrative budget of $1,823.7 million). This yields an overall FY13

price adjustment of $47.1 million consisting of:

A price adjustment of $19.6 million for US$‐based headquarters (HQ) salary and salary‐related

costs (on an HQ wage bill base of $1,031 million);

A price adjustment for non‐US$ Country Office salaries of $7.4 million comprising a positive

local structural adjustment of $7.4 million and a slight reduction ($0.02 million) reflecting local

currency appreciation relative to the $US (on a non‐HQ wage bill of $147 million);

A price adjustment for other (non‐salary) US$‐based costs of $14.0 million;

A price adjustment for non‐US$ Country Office, non‐salary related costs of $14.2 million

including an offsetting adjustment reflecting local currency appreciation of $1.2 million; and

An adjustment of ‐$8.2 million that eliminates reimbursables from the four components above.

51. The overall price adjustment is the weighted average of the above components: 1.90 percent

structural adjustment for Washington‐based staff costs, 1.98 percent for US$‐based non‐staff costs,

5.10 percent for Country Office staff costs, and 7.50 percent for non US$‐based non‐staff costs.

Price for Country Office costs includes adjustments for local currency depreciation.

52. Management plans to apply unit (VPU) specific price adjustments for selected units that have sizable

local currency costs.

FY13 FY14 FY15

Bank Directed Grant Programs 53.7 54.8 54.8 54.8

Institutional Development Fund (IDF) 17.6 16.5 16.5 16.5

Civil Society Fund (CSF) 2.8

Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA) 5.0 5.0 5.0

State & Peace Building Fund (SPF) 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3

Development Grant Facility (DGF) 57.3 56.2 56.2 56.2

Short‐Term Programs 26.5 30.0 higher higher

Long‐Term Programs 30.8 26.2 lower lower

Long‐Term External Partnership 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

Total Grant Making Facilities, including CGIAR 161.0 161.0 161.0 161.0

FY12

Budget

Multi‐Year Framework

Table 3.10: Grant‐Making Facility Budgets ($ million)


‐ 30 ‐

53. The price adjustment for Executive Directors’ budget will be determined following the decisions of

the Joint Committee on Remuneration and subsequent approval by the Board of Governors.

3.8 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY

54. The three‐year capital program over the FY13‐15 period is $440.5 million with Technology and

Systems accounting for $186.0 million and Facilities for the remaining $254.5 million. The FY13‐

FY15 capital program is $31.0 million (7.6 percent) larger than the FY12‐14 approved capital

program of $409.3 million. The increase is mostly due to the Data Center move within the

Washington Facilities program.

55. Capital budget increase needed for investments in IT and Washington Facilities. The total

proposed capital budget for FY13 is $171.1 million, which is a 23.0 percent ($32 million) increase

over the Board approved FY12 capital budget of $139.1 million. The increases are related to

investments in Technology and Systems ($13.2 million) and Washington Facilities ($20.3 million)

offset by a decrease in Country Office Facilities ($1.5 million). (See Table 3.12 for a summary.

Additional details are provided in Annex D.) Descriptions of major capital budget‐related projects

are included below.

56. Technology and Systems. The FY11‐13 IMT Three‐Year Strategy provides the selection framework

for Technology and Systems capital investments – a critical element of the Bank’s business

modernization. The FY13 Capital Budget is $80.5 million, a $13.2 million increase over the approved

FY12 Capital Budget. The FY13 allocation of capital by business category includes: Corporate ($8.2

million), Finance ($26.5 million), Operations/Knowledge ($10.2 million), Shared Services

components ($34.8 million), and IMT Strategic Program Reserve ($0.9 million).

57. Facilities – Washington. The two main components of the $20.3 million increase in capital budget

needs for Washington Facilities are the planned relocation of the IT data center from the H‐Building

to a new off‐site facility; and Washington building upgrades and maintenance projects that were

postponed while the HQ Real Estate Strategy was being implemented. Projects related to the data

center relocation ($10.0 million), public space improvements ($4.6 million), physical security

upgrades ($3.6 million) and Business Continuity Center facilities equipment replacements ($2.5

million) will receive the most funding in FY13.


‐ 31 ‐

58. Facilities – Country Offices. The FY13 capital budget request of $62.0 million for Country Office

Facilities includes acquisitions and new construction, as well as security, expansions and upgrades of

existing facilities in support of decentralization of staff and authority to Country Offices.

Acquisitions and new construction, totaling $23.4 million, include land/facility purchases proposed

for Uganda, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka. Acquisitions are being explored versus leases given the

condition of the global real estate market and favorable economic terms and benefits.

59. A corporate approach to management of the Country Office Facilities program is under

consideration to optimize the management and maintenance of the Bank’s global real estate

portfolio. This will increase Management’s ability to plan and implement real estate decisions and

facilities maintenance/upgrade projects from a long‐term and strategic perspective.

FY12 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Approved YTD1 Budget Plan Plan

Technology and Systems 67.3 55.0 80.5 55.5 50.0

of which IMT Investment Program Reserve 0.2 n/a 0.9 0.1 13.6

Facilities – Washington 8.3 0.3 28.6 26.0 17.5

of which HQ Real Estate Proposa l 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0

H‐Bui lding Data Center Move 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Facilities ‐ Country Office 63.5 31.8 62.0 62.7 57.8

of which Global Faci l i ties Set‐as ide2 39.0 25.3 22.8 23.0 48.0

Total Capital Budget (All Parts): 139.1 87.1 171.1 144.2 125.3

Percent Uti l i zation (FY12 YTD Release/FY12 Approved) 62.6%

1Data on capital release of funds as of May 8, 2012 for Technology and Systems and May 10, 2012 for Facilities

Capital Funds ($ Millions)

2Global Facilities set‐aside is an estimate takings into account on‐going/anticipated Decentralization reforms and co‐

location with IFC and includes country office relocations.

Table 3.11: Capital Program Summary – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15


‐ 32 ‐

Box 3.5: H‐Building IT Data Center Relocation

On December 29, 2011, the World Bank finalized a ten‐year lease agreement concerning the H‐Building with the

United States Government, which will occupy the building starting in mid‐FY13. The lease is a key component of

the HQ Real Estate Strategy developed in 2008 to address office space needs in the Bank’s Washington

Headquarters. The 30‐year old, 10,000 square foot data center is the last remaining Bank function to be moved

out of the H‐Building. A risk review by Deloitte in FY11 confirmed the Bank's dual data center strategy (in place

since 2008) continues to be the best‐practice approach and recommended that the data center in the H‐Building

be moved to a new site within 60 miles of Chantilly, VA (the location of the Bank’s primary data center) and 30

miles from the HQ campus. The two data centers are each capable of independently operating the mission

critical IT applications and communications systems of the Bank in the event of an outage at one of the data

centers. In addition, because the Bank has two active data centers, it is possible to physically move one of them

with minimal risk of disruption to the Bank's business operations.

Management is looking at options to either buy land, and design and build a new facility to meet the Bank's

specifications, or to purchase an existing facility for modification/re‐commissioning. Capital funds totaling $30

million ($10 million/annum) have been set aside in the FY13‐15 Washington Facilities Capital budget portfolio for

this purpose. Facilities purchases and related fit‐out are depreciated over 50 years (excluding land, which is not

depreciated) per the Bank's accounting guidelines. IT investment for the Data Center Relocation will be planned

for within the FY14‐16 planning cycle. The intent is to have the new facility available for the movement of IT

assets by the beginning of FY16.


‐ 33 ‐

ANNEX A: RESTORING BUDGET FLEXIBILITY

1. Budget flexibility at the corporate level is the budget room available to Management at the

beginning of the budget cycle to fund specific activities, including contingencies, without having to

adjust existing unit budget trajectories. There are two sources of such flexibility: The first is the

upper portion of the +/‐ 2 percent budget flexibility band, which is normally available for use during

the year, at Management discretion. The second source of corporate budget flexibility is the

difference between the planned budget envelope and the sum of unit budgets and the projected

expenditure for centrally managed accounts. The Corporate Scorecard performance standard for

budget flexibility at the start of the budget cycle is 5 percent – 2 percent from the flexibility band

and 3 percent from programming unit trajectories appropriately.

2. During the Medium‐Term Business and Finance (MTBF) discussion, there was widespread support

for increasing budget flexibility at the corporate level – to allow both greater room for making

resource choices and trade‐offs across the institution and to fund a robust contingency for intra‐

year use.

3. There are a number of ways in which programmed corporate budget room may be achieved:

Increasing the budget envelope over the planning horizon;

Conducting discrete, periodic efficiency/selectivity exercises generating budget savings that may

be made available to the corporate center; and

Ensuring that unit budget trajectories in the aggregate decline compared to the overall budget

envelope, thereby programming an increasing return of budget room to the corporate center.

4. In the first half of the past decade, budget increases contributed to corporate budget flexibility. In

each of the four years over the FY02‐05 period, the Bank’s budget expressed in real terms grew – in

the range of 1‐3 percent per annum. As of FY06, with the adoption of the flat real budget

constraint, budget growth has no longer been a source of corporate budget flexibility.

5. Periodic efficiency/selectivity exercises have been a constant feature of Bank budgeting. Annex XI of

this year’s MTBF paper summarized the most important initiatives implemented since the late

1990s. While the bulk of the savings from these initiatives has generally remained with units, a

portion has also been retained at the center as a source of corporate budget flexibility. Such efforts

are typically one‐off exercises that shift trajectories rather than tilting them downwards over time.

6. The main instrument for tilting aggregate unit trajectories downwards has been the “productivity

tax.” Applied since FY04, this evolving measure has had two objectives – to provide funding for

redeployments to emerging priorities, and to encourage increasing efficiency in work program

delivery. As noted in the MTBF (paragraphs 131 and 151), the tax varies between 1 and 3 percent of

a unit’s budget, based on performance against peer units. Performance indicators include project

completion costs, supervision efficiency, and overhead ratios. Phased reinstitution of this measure


‐ 34 ‐

(re‐labeled “budget flexibility tax” – see discussion in paragraph 37 of Section 3) for FY14‐15 will

generate around 0.5 percent and 2.0 percent respectively.

7. Even with reinstitution of budget flexibility measures, the Corporate Scorecard target will not be

met in FY14‐15 on current assumptions. Including planned corporate contingencies for the two

years, budget flexibility is expected to be $8.9 million in FY14 (0.5 percent of budget) and $42.5

million in FY15 (2.4 percent).

8. Another way of increasing the return of budget space from units to the corporate center is to limit

the duration of funding for specific activities that are expected to be mainstreamed into unit

budgets, or where the activity is expected to be of limited duration. Starting last year, units have

been advised what portion of their budget envelopes is “trajectory” and what portion is of limited

duration, or “time bound” nature. A targeted annual reflow to the corporate center of 1 percent of

budget from time bound measures, assuming three‐year average duration of such measures, would

require that 3 percent (around $54 million) of the budget be time bound. This compares to the

actual figure of around $30 million. Furthermore, virtually all of this time bound funding expires at

the end of the planning period (i.e., after FY15), thereby only contributing to budget flexibility in

FY16.

9. The net effect is that corporate budget flexibility remains below the Corporate Scorecard

performance standard over the planning period, particularly for FY14. This means that any

significant budgetary investments required in next year’s budget will have to come from targeted

redeployments, unit‐specific measures, and/or across‐the‐board unit reductions beyond the levels

set in the indicative FY13‐15 trajectories that will result from approval of the recommendations in

this document.


‐ 35 ‐

Table B.1: Total Bank Budget Work Program Funding FY11‐15 ($ million)

ANNEX B: NEW PROGRAM COST SUMMARY TABLE

The Program Cost Summary table has been enhanced to show total work program funding by VPU,

including Bank‐Executed Trust Funds. For reference, below is a table on the Total Bank Budget Work

Program Funding.

1. REGIONAL PROGRAMS

Africa 330.0 337.3 325.3 329.3 338.8 341.1 341.1

East Asia and Pacific 151.0 158.1 152.7 154.4 160.9 160.9 160.9

Europe and Central Asia 167.9 171.6 164.2 167.7 173.0 173.0 173.0

Latin America and Caribbean 173.3 178.9 172.4 172.4 177.6 177.6 177.6

Middle East and North Africa 100.6 102.3 99.0 102.5 105.0 105.0 102.0

South Asia 145.4 152.3 147.5 147.5 150.8 150.8 150.8

Bank/FAO Cooperative Program 13.4 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.9 13.9 13.9

Corporate Contingency Fund for Regions ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.0 5.2 7.7 10.3

Corporate Priorities Fund for Regions ‐ ‐ ‐ 10.0 10.3 10.3 10.3

SUB TOTAL 1,081.5 1,114.2 1,074.9 1,102.4 1,135.4 1,140.3 1,139.9

2. NETWORK PROGRAMS

Sustainable Development Network 59.1 60.4 56.5 50.4 51.4 51.4 51.4

Financial and Private Sector Development 38.7 41.4 42.0 35.8 36.5 36.2 36.2

Human Development 29.7 29.7 28.5 25.6 26.0 26.0 26.0

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management 31.8 31.7 29.1 26.8 27.3 27.3 27.3

SUB TOTAL 159.3 163.2 156.1 138.6 141.2 140.9 140.9

3. OTHER OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS

Operations Policy & Country Services 43.1 44.6 43.7 42.7 43.5 41.6 40.6

Development Economics 52.0 51.6 48.9 48.0 48.9 48.9 48.9

World Bank Institute 52.1 51.3 48.5 46.9 47.8 48.0 48.0

SUB TOTAL 147.2 147.5 141.0 137.6 140.2 138.6 137.5

4. EXPECTED FUNDING FROM KNOWLEDGE COUNCIL 11.2 13.0 13.0 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.2

5. OPERATIONAL UNITS SUBTOTAL 1,399.3 1,437.9 1,385.0 1,385.7 1,424.0 1,427.0 1,425.5

6. FINANCE PROGRAMS

Treasurer's 47.3 30.3 27.4 26.3 26.8 26.8 26.8

Controller's 36.3 38.0 34.1 33.9 34.5 34.5 34.5

Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships 16.3 14.3 13.5 14.0 14.3 14.3 13.2

Corporate Finance and Credit Risk 20.2 20.7 20.7 20.7 21.1 20.6 20.6

Finance CIO Office ‐ 34.4 28.8 32.3 32.9 37.4 38.3

Chief Risk Office ‐ 1.2 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7

SUB TOTAL 120.1 138.9 126.2 129.8 132.2 136.2 136.1

7. ADMINSTRATION PROGRAMS

Human Resources 67.1 68.8 62.5 61.8 62.9 61.2 60.7

Information Solutions Group 69.4 53.7 123.8 125.4 127.7 124.4 126.3

General Services and Facilities 125.7 126.6 114.2 110.7 112.8 111.8 110.7

SUB TOTAL 262.2 249.1 300.6 297.8 303.4 297.3 297.7

8. CORPORTATE PROGRAMS

Office of the President 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.7

Managing Directors 7.9 9.6 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.0

IDA IFC Secretariat 0.3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Office of Evaluation and Suspension 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

External Affairs 34.4 35.0 37.3 36.9 37.9 37.8 37.8

Internal Audit 9.4 9.6 9.3 8.6 8.8 8.8 8.8

Legal Services 31.1 34.0 23.2 22.4 22.8 22.8 22.8

Conflict Resolution System 10.3 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.0

Integrity Vice Presidency 16.8 16.7 16.1 15.6 15.9 15.9 15.9

Office of Ethics and Business Conduct ‐ 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8

Administrative Tribunal ‐ 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Sanctions Board ‐ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

SUB TOTAL 117.4 123.6 113.3 110.8 113.2 113.1 113.0

9. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE SUBTOTAL 499.6 511.6 540.0 538.4 548.8 546.7 546.9

10. ALL UNITS TOTAL 1,898.9 1,949.5 1,925.0 1,924.1 1,972.8 1,973.6 1,972.4

FY11 Budget

PlanADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

1/ FY12 Budget

Plan

FY12 Budget

Remap

FY13 Plan

($FY12)

FY13 Plan

($FY13)

FY14

Indicative

($FY13)

FY15

Indicative

($FY13)


‐ 36 ‐

11. SECRETARIATS/ORGANIZATIONS HOSTED BY THE WORLD BANK

Global Environment Facility Secretariat ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0

SUB TOTAL 1.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0

12. FUNDS YET TO BE ALLOCATED ‐ 2.6 1.8 ‐ ‐ ‐ 15.7

13. BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLAN 14.6 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.7 16.7 16.7

14. CENTRALLY‐MANAGED OVERHEAD & BENEFITS 2/

(177.5) (175.0) (168.8) (143.2) (145.9) (130.3) (109.7)

15. HQ REAL ESTATE PROPOSAL 35.9 16.3 16.3 (4.1) (4.1) (3.9) (3.2)

16. INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS ‐ 4.7 27.5 27.8 28.3 28.5 27.1

17. OTHERS3/

3.7 6.0 2.6 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.9

18. PLANNED SAVINGS (UNALLOCATED) 4/

‐ ‐ ‐ (3.5) (3.5) (20.0) (54.0)

SUB TOTAL (123.3) (129.1) (104.2) (103.1) (104.9) (105.8) (104.5)

19. NET ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET 1,777.5 1,823.3 1,823.7 1,823.7 1,870.8 1,870.8 1,870.8

20. BOARDS, SEC & IEG

Boards 5/

83.7 85.2 86.6 88.3 90.6 87.7 87.7

Corporate Secretariat 14.4 15.0 15.0 15.3 15.6 15.6 15.6

Independent Evaluation Group 25.5 25.8 25.6 26.3 26.8 25.9 25.7

Less: Reimbursables for Boards 6/

(17.5) (23.3) (23.3) (22.5) (23.0) (22.2) (22.5)

IBRD/IDA SHARE OF BUDGET FOR BOARDS, SEC & IEG 106.0 102.6 104.0 107.5 110.1 107.0 106.6

21. STAFF RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS 7/

250.8 299.4 299.4 357.9 357.9 364.7 371.6

22. DEVELOPMENT GRANT FACILITY 63.8 57.3 57.3 56.2 56.2 56.2 56.2

23. INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND 8/

20.1 20.4 20.4 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

24. GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ‐ ‐ ‐ 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

25. STATE AND PEACE BUILDING FUND 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3

26. CGIAR 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

27. BELOW‐THE‐LINE BANK BUDGET WORK PROGRAM FUNDING 524.0 563.0 564.4 626.4 628.9 632.7 639.2

28. TOTAL BANK BUDGET WORK PROGRAM FUNDING 2,301.6 2,386.3 2,387.9 2,450.1 2,499.7 2,503.5 2,510.0

1/ Figures may not add due to rounding.

2/Now includes Staff Separation Fund which was presented as a separate l ine in earlier documents; also includes revenues from incidentals such as contract rebates.

3/Includes Publication Revenue, Reimbursable Escrow and Foreign Exchange Contingency.

4/Includes anticipated increase revenue from Trust Fund fee income and fee‐based services as well as redeployments from Productivity Tax.

5/

6/Board's work program is fully funded by Bank Budget independent of any cost sharing revenues received from IFC/MIGA.

7/Includes Staff Retirement Plan and Trust, Retired Staff Benefits Plan and Trust, and Post‐Employment Benefits Plan.

8/Institutional Grant Programs are now split into Institutional Development Fund and GPSA.

FY13 plan for Executive Directors' budget in FY13$ is estimated using Washington‐Baltimore CPIA of 2.8 percent. As approved by the Board of Executive Directors, the price

increase for Executive Directors' budget will be determined subject to the decisions of the Joint Committee on Remuneration and subsequent approval by the Board of Governors.

FY11 Budget

PlanADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS

1/ FY12 Budget

Plan

FY12 Budget

Remap

FY13 Plan

($FY12)

FY13 Plan

($FY13)

FY14

Indicative

($FY13)

FY15

Indicative

($FY13)


‐ 37 ‐

Table B.2: Program Cost Summary – All Funds – FY11‐15 ($ million)

1.REG

IONAL PROGRAMS

Africa

330.0

17.2

104.7

451.9

337.3

17.2

108.5

463.0

325.3

17.2

108.5

451.0

329.3

22.0

112.6

463.9

338.8

22.6

114.3

475.7

East Asia and Pacific

151.0

18.9

87.4

257.3

158.1

18.0

85.1

261.1

152.7

18.0

85.1

255.7

154.4

16.4

86.1

256.9

160.9

16.8

87.4

265.0

Europe and Central Asia

167.9

21.1

22.1

211.1

171.6

29.7

22.2

223.5

164.2

29.7

22.2

216.1

167.7

31.5

24.3

223.4

173.0

32.3

24.6

229.8

Latin America and Caribbean

173.3

13.1

24.6

211.0

178.9

12.1

22.9

213.9

172.4

12.1

22.9

207.4

172.4

12.8

23.3

208.5

177.6

13.1

23.6

214.4

Middle East and North Africa

100.6

17.2

25.1

142.9

102.3

19.2

27.5

149.0

99.0

19.2

27.5

145.7

102.5

21.4

29.7

153.6

105.0

22.0

30.0

157.0

South Asia

145.4

9.7

37.8

192.8

152.3

12.1

40.4

204.8

147.5

12.1

40.4

200.0

147.5

10.0

43.8

201.4

150.8

10.3

44.4

205.5

Bank/FA

O Cooperative

Program

13.4

‐

‐

13.4

13.7

‐

‐

13.7

13.7

‐

‐

13.7

13.7

‐

‐

13.7

13.9

‐

‐

13.9

Corporate Contingency Fund for Regions

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.2

‐

‐

5.2

Corporate Priorities Fund for Regions

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

10.0

‐

‐

10.0

10.3

‐

‐

10.3

SUB TOTA

L1,081.5

97.2

301.7

1,480.5

1,114.2

108.3

306.5

1,528.9

1,074.9

108.3

306.5

1,489.6

1,102.4

114.1

319.8

1,536.3

1,135.4

117.0

324.4

1,576.8

2.NETWORK PROGRAMS

Sustainable Development Netw

ork

59.1

35.4

106.5

200.9

60.4

33.6

126.7

220.7

56.5

33.6

126.7

216.8

50.4

33.9

132.4

216.7

51.4

34.8

134.1

220.3

Financial and Private Sector Development

38.7

1.1

29.2

69.0

41.4

1.4

32.5

75.3

42.0

1.4

32.5

75.8

35.8

3.1

37.2

76.1

36.5

3.2

37.6

77.3

Human

Development

29.7

2.7

29.3

61.7

29.7

1.5

33.1

64.3

28.5

1.5

33.1

63.2

25.6

1.7

37.5

64.7

26.0

1.7

38.0

65.7

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management

31.8

0.9

16.7

49.4

31.7

0.7

18.1

50.5

29.1

0.7

18.1

47.9

26.8

0.3

19.0

46.1

27.3

0.3

19.3

46.9

SUB TOTA

L159.3

40.0

181.7

381.0

163.2

37.2

210.4

410.8

156.1

37.2

210.4

403.7

138.6

39.0

226.0

403.6

141.2

40.0

229.0

410.2

3.OTH

ER OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS

Operations Policy & Country Services

43.1

0.2

1.9

45.2

44.6

0.3

2.4

47.3

43.7

0.3

2.4

46.4

42.7

0.1

2.4

45.3

43.5

0.1

2.5

46.1

Development Economics

52.0

3.3

27.2

82.5

51.6

1.6

25.0

78.2

48.9

1.6

25.0

75.5

48.0

2.6

24.3

74.9

48.9

2.7

24.6

76.3

World Bank Institute

52.1

2.8

32.0

86.9

51.3

1.5

24.2

76.9

48.5

1.5

24.2

74.1

46.9

1.5

24.5

72.9

47.8

1.5

25.0

74.2

SUB TOTA

L147.2

6.3

61.1

214.6

147.5

3.4

51.6

202.5

141.0

3.4

51.6

196.0

137.6

4.2

51.2

193.1

140.2

4.4

52.1

196.6

4.EXPECTED FUNDING FROM KNOWLEDGE COUNCIL

11.2

‐

‐

‐

13.0

‐

‐

13.0

13.0

‐

‐

13.0

7.0

‐

‐

7.0

7.2

‐

‐

7.2

5.OPERATIONAL UNITS SU

BTO

TAL

1,399.3

143.5

544.6

2,076.1

1,437.9

148.8

568.4

2,155.2

1,385.0

148.8

568.4

2,102.2

1,385.7

157.3

597.0

2,140.1

1,424.0

161.4

605.4

2,190.8

6.FINANCE PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Treasurer's

47.3

41.5

0.1

88.9

30.3

45.2

(0.0)

75.5

27.4

45.2

(0.0)

72.6

26.3

46.4

(0.1)

72.6

26.8

47.6

(0.1)

74.3

Controller's

36.3

13.8

0.0

50.1

38.0

13.8

0.0

51.8

34.1

13.8

0.0

47.9

33.9

14.3

(0.0)

48.1

34.5

14.6

(0.0)

49.2

Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships

16.3

7.7

1.1

25.2

14.3

7.9

0.7

22.8

13.5

7.9

0.7

22.0

14.0

8.4

0.7

23.1

14.3

8.6

0.7

23.6

Corporate Finance and Credit Risk

20.2

0.2

‐

20.4

20.7

0.7

‐

21.3

20.7

0.7

‐

21.4

20.7

0.8

‐

21.5

21.1

0.8

‐

21.9

Finance CIO Office

‐

‐

‐

‐

34.4

0.4

‐

34.8

28.8

0.4

‐

29.2

32.3

0.4

‐

32.7

32.9

0.4

‐

33.3

Chief Risk Office

‐

‐

‐

‐

1.2

0.4

‐

1.6

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

2.6

0.4

‐

3.0

2.7

0.4

‐

3.1

SUB TOTA

L120.1

63.2

1.3

184.6

138.9

68.3

0.6

207.8

126.2

68.3

0.6

195.2

129.8

70.7

0.6

201.1

132.2

72.5

0.6

205.4

7.ADMINSTRATION PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Human

Resources

67.1

9.7

14.5

91.4

68.8

7.1

17.7

93.6

62.5

7.1

17.7

87.3

61.8

7.0

19.7

88.5

62.9

7.2

20.0

90.1

Inform

ation Solutions Group

69.4

20.7

‐

90.1

53.7

20.5

‐

74.2

123.8

20.5

‐

144.3

125.4

21.7

‐

147.0

127.7

22.2

‐

149.9

General Services and Facilities

125.7

34.4

‐

160.0

126.6

38.9

‐

165.5

114.2

38.9

‐

153.1

110.7

37.9

‐

148.6

112.8

38.9

‐

151.7

SUB TOTA

L262.2

64.7

14.5

341.5

249.1

66.4

17.7

333.2

300.6

66.4

17.7

384.6

297.8

66.6

19.7

384.1

303.4

68.3

20.0

391.7

8.CORPORTA

TE PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Office of the President

5.6

‐

‐

5.6

5.7

‐

‐

5.7

5.6

‐

‐

5.6

5.6

‐

‐

5.6

5.7

‐

‐

5.7

Managing Directors

7.9

‐

‐

7.9

9.6

‐

‐

9.6

8.9

‐

‐

8.9

8.9

‐

‐

8.9

9.0

‐

‐

9.0

IDA IFC Secretariat

0.3

0.5

‐

0.8

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Office of Evaluation and Suspension

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

External Affairs

34.4

1.0

2.0

37.4

35.0

0.9

1.7

37.6

37.3

0.9

1.7

40.0

36.9

1.5

1.6

40.0

37.9

1.5

1.6

41.1

Internal Audit

9.4

2.7

‐

12.1

9.6

2.7

‐

12.3

9.3

2.7

‐

12.1

8.6

2.5

‐

11.1

8.8

2.6

‐

11.4

Legal Services

31.1

4.8

3.7

39.7

34.0

5.6

3.6

43.2

23.2

5.6

3.6

32.5

22.4

5.6

3.4

31.4

22.8

5.7

3.4

32.0

Conflict Resolution System

10.3

2.0

‐

12.2

4.1

0.9

‐

5.1

3.9

0.9

‐

4.8

3.9

0.9

‐

4.8

4.0

0.9

‐

4.9

Integrity Vice Presidency

16.8

3.5

‐

20.3

16.7

3.9

‐

20.5

16.1

3.9

‐

20.0

15.6

4.6

‐

20.2

15.9

4.7

‐

20.6

Office of Ethics and Business Conduct

‐

‐

‐

‐

4.7

1.1

‐

5.7

4.7

1.1

‐

5.7

4.7

1.1

‐

5.7

4.8

1.1

‐

5.8

Administrative Tribunal

‐

‐

‐

‐

1.6

0.4

‐

2.0

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

Sanctions Board

‐

‐

‐

‐

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

SUB TOTA

L117.4

14.5

5.7

137.6

123.6

15.5

5.3

144.4

113.3

15.5

5.3

134.1

110.8

16.5

5.0

132.3

113.2

17.0

5.1

135.2

9.FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE SUBTO

TAL

499.6

142.5

21.5

663.7

511.6

150.2

23.6

685.4

540.0

150.2

23.6

713.9

538.4

153.8

25.3

717.4

548.8

157.8

25.6

732.3

‐

‐

10.ALL UNITS TO

TAL

1,898.9

286.0

566.1

2,739.8

1,949.5

299.1

592.0

2,840.5

1,925.0

299.1

592.0

2,816.1

1,924.1

311.2

622.3

2,857.5

1,972.8

319.2

631.1

2,923.1

BB

All Funds

FY13 Plan ($FY12)

FY13 Plan ($FY13)

Reim

b.

BETF

BB

FY12 Budget Remap

FY11 Plan

FY12 Plan

BB

Reim

b.

BETF

All

Funds

BB

ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS 1/

Reim

b.

BETF

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds

All Funds

BB

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds


‐ 38 ‐

11.SECRETA

RIATS/ORGANIZATIONS HOSTED

BY TH

E WORLD

BANK

‐

‐

Global Environm

ent Facility Secretariat

‐

‐

23.5

23.5

‐

‐

27.0

27.0

‐

‐

27.0

27.0

‐

‐

26.1

26.1

‐

‐

26.4

26.4

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

1.9

‐

‐

1.9

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

SUB TOTA

L1.9

‐

23.5

25.3

2.8

‐

27.0

29.8

2.8

‐

27.0

29.8

2.8

‐

26.1

28.9

2.8

‐

26.4

29.2

12.FU

NDS YET

TO BE ALLOCATED

‐

‐

‐

‐

2.6

‐

‐

2.6

1.8

‐

‐

1.8

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

13.BUSINESS

CONTINUITY PLA

N14.6

‐

‐

14.6

16.4

‐

‐

16.4

16.4

‐

‐

16.4

16.4

‐

‐

16.4

16.7

‐

‐

16.7

14.CEN

TRALLY‐MANAGED

OVER

HEA

D & BEN

EFITS

2/

(177.5)

0.7

‐

(176.8)

(175.0)

‐

‐

(175.0)

(168.8)

‐

‐

(168.8)

(143.2)

‐

‐

(143.2)

(145.9)

‐

‐

(145.9)

15.HQ REA

L ESTA

TE PROPOSA

L35.9

‐

‐

35.9

16.3

‐

‐

16.3

16.3

‐

‐

16.3

(4.1)

‐

‐

(4.1)

(4.1)

‐

‐

(4.1)

16.INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS

‐

‐

‐

‐

4.7

‐

0.1

4.9

27.5

‐

0.1

27.7

27.8

0.9

0.1

28.7

28.3

0.9

0.1

29.3

17.OTH

ERS

3/

3.7

3.5

‐

7.2

6.0

3.2

‐

9.2

2.6

3.2

‐

5.8

3.5

2.7

‐

6.2

3.6

2.7

‐

6.3

18.PLA

NNED SAVINGS (UNALLOCATED) 4/

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

(3.5)

‐

‐

(3.5)

(3.5)

‐

‐

(3.5)

SUB TOTA

L(123.3)

4.2

‐

(119.1)

(129.1)

3.2

0.1

(125.7)

(104.2)

3.2

0.1

(100.9)

(103.1)

3.5

0.1

(99.5)

(104.9)

3.6

0.1

(101.2)

19.ABOVE‐TH

E‐LINE WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

1,777.5

290.2

589.6

2,646.1

1,823.3

302.3

619.1

2,744.6

1,823.7

302.3

619.1

2,745.0

1,823.7

314.7

648.5

2,786.9

1,870.8

322.8

657.5

2,851.1

20.O/W

NET

ADMINISTR

ATIVE BUDGET

1,777.5

‐

‐

‐

1,823.3

‐

‐

‐

1,823.7

‐

‐

1,823.7

1,823.7

‐

‐

‐

1,870.8

‐

‐

‐

21.BOARDS, SEC

& IEG

Boards 5/

83.7

‐

0.8

84.5

85.2

‐

0.8

86.0

86.6

‐

0.8

87.5

88.3

‐

0.7

89.0

90.6

‐

0.7

91.4

Corporate Secretariat

14.4

1.2

‐

15.5

15.0

0.1

0.5

15.6

15.0

0.1

0.5

15.6

15.3

0.0

0.5

15.9

15.6

0.0

0.5

16.1

Independent Evaluation Group

25.5

7.0

1.2

33.7

25.8

7.3

1.4

34.5

25.6

7.3

1.4

34.3

26.3

7.4

1.4

35.1

26.8

7.6

1.4

35.8

Less: R

eimbursables for Boards 6/

(17.5)

17.5

‐

‐

(23.3)

23.3

‐

‐

(23.3)

23.3

‐

‐

(22.5)

22.5

‐

‐

(23.0)

23.0

‐

‐

IBRD/IDA SHARE OF BUDGET FO

R BOARDS, SEC

& IEG

106.0

25.7

2.1

133.7

102.6

30.8

2.7

136.1

104.0

30.8

2.7

137.4

107.5

29.9

2.6

140.0

110.1

30.6

2.6

143.3

22.STAFF RETIREM

ENT ACCOUNTS

7/

250.8

‐

‐

250.8

299.4

‐

‐

299.4

299.4

‐

‐

299.4

357.9

‐

‐

357.9

357.9

‐

‐

357.9

23.DEV

ELOPMEN

T GRANT FA

CILITY

63.8

‐

‐

63.8

57.3

‐

‐

57.3

57.3

‐

‐

57.3

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

24.INSTITUTIONAL DEV

ELOPMEN

T FU

ND 8/

20.1

‐

‐

20.1

20.4

‐

‐

20.4

20.4

‐

‐

20.4

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

25.GLO

BAL PARTN

ERSH

IP FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTA

BILITY

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

26.STATE

AND PEA

CE BUILDING FUND

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

27.CGIAR

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

28BELOW‐THE‐LINE WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

524.0

25.7

2.1

551.7

563.0

30.8

2.7

596.5

564.4

30.8

2.7

597.9

626.4

29.9

2.6

658.8

628.9

30.6

2.6

662.2

‐

‐

29.TO

TAL WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

2,301.6

315.9

591.6

3,197.8

2,386.3

333.1

621.8

3,341.1

2,387.8

333.1

621.8

3,342.7

2,450.1

344.6

651.0

3,445.7

2,499.7

353.5

660.2

3,513.3

BB

All Funds

FY13 Plan ($FY12)

FY13 Plan ($FY13)

Reimb.

BETF

BB

FY12 Budget Rem

ap

FY11

Plan

FY12 Plan

BB

Reimb.

BETF

All

Funds

BB


Reimb.

BETF

Reimb.

BETF

All Funds

All Funds

BB

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds


‐ 39 ‐

1.REG

IONAL PROGRAMS

Africa

325.3

17.2

108.5

451.0

329.3

22.0

112.6

463.9

338.8

22.6

114.3

475.7

341.1

23.3

120.6

485.0

341.1

22.0

126.1

489.3

East Asia and Pacific

152.7

18.0

85.1

255.7

154.4

16.4

86.1

256.9

160.9

16.8

87.4

265.0

160.9

20.3

89.5

270.7

160.9

20.1

92.2

273.1

Europe and Central Asia

164.2

29.7

22.2

216.1

167.7

31.5

24.3

223.4

173.0

32.3

24.6

229.8

173.0

29.2

25.8

227.9

173.0

29.2

26.9

229.1

Latin America and Caribbean

172.4

12.1

22.9

207.4

172.4

12.8

23.3

208.5

177.6

13.1

23.6

214.4

177.6

12.7

24.1

214.4

177.6

12.8

25.5

216.0

Middle East and North Africa

99.0

19.2

27.5

145.7

102.5

21.4

29.7

153.6

105.0

22.0

30.0

157.0

105.0

22.4

31.8

159.2

102.0

22.9

33.0

157.9

South Asia

147.5

12.1

40.4

200.0

147.5

10.0

43.8

201.4

150.8

10.3

44.4

205.5

150.8

11.4

46.9

209.1

150.8

11.6

49.4

211.8

Bank/FA

O Cooperative

Program

13.7

‐

‐

13.7

13.7

‐

‐

13.7

13.9

‐

‐

13.9

13.9

‐

‐

13.9

13.9

‐

‐

13.9

Corporate Contingency Fund for Regions

‐

‐

‐

‐

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.2

‐

‐

5.2

7.7

‐

‐

7.7

10.3

‐

‐

10.3

Corporate Priorities Fund for Regions

‐

‐

‐

‐

10.0

‐

‐

10.0

10.3

‐

‐

10.3

10.3

‐

‐

10.3

10.3

‐

‐

10.3

SUB TOTA

L1,074.9

108.3

306.5

1,489.6

1,102.4

114.1

319.8

1,536.3

1,135.4

117.0

324.4

1,576.8

1,140.3

119.3

338.7

1,598.3

1,139.9

118.6

353.2

1,611.7

2.NETWORK PROGRAMS

Sustainable Development Netw

ork

56.5

33.6

126.7

216.8

50.4

33.9

132.4

216.7

51.4

34.8

134.1

220.3

51.4

36.8

136.9

225.2

51.4

34.1

138.7

224.2

Financial and Private Sector Development

42.0

1.4

32.5

75.8

35.8

3.1

37.2

76.1

36.5

3.2

37.6

77.3

36.2

3.7

42.6

82.5

36.2

3.4

44.2

83.8

Human

Development

28.5

1.5

33.1

63.2

25.6

1.7

37.5

64.7

26.0

1.7

38.0

65.7

26.0

2.7

37.3

66.1

26.0

2.7

37.2

66.0

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management

29.1

0.7

18.1

47.9

26.8

0.3

19.0

46.1

27.3

0.3

19.3

46.9

27.3

1.0

20.2

48.5

27.3

0.9

21.7

49.9

SUB TOTA

L156.1

37.2

210.4

403.7

138.6

39.0

226.0

403.6

141.2

40.0

229.0

410.2

140.9

44.3

237.1

422.3

140.9

41.1

241.8

423.8

3.OTH

ER OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS

Operations Policy & Country Services

43.7

0.3

2.4

46.4

42.7

0.1

2.4

45.3

43.5

0.1

2.5

46.1

41.6

0.3

2.6

44.5

40.6

0.3

2.6

43.6

Development Economics

48.9

1.6

25.0

75.5

48.0

2.6

24.3

74.9

48.9

2.7

24.6

76.3

48.9

4.0

24.9

77.9

48.9

4.1

25.2

78.3

World Bank Institute

48.5

1.5

24.2

74.1

46.9

1.5

24.5

72.9

47.8

1.5

25.0

74.2

48.0

2.0

25.3

75.3

48.0

2.0

25.6

75.6

SUB TOTA

L141.0

3.4

51.6

196.0

137.6

4.2

51.2

193.1

140.2

4.4

52.1

196.6

138.6

6.3

52.8

197.6

137.5

6.5

53.4

197.4

4.EXPECTED FUNDING FROM KNOWLEDGE COUNCIL

13.0

‐

‐

13.0

7.0

‐

‐

7.0

7.2

‐

‐

7.2

7.2

‐

‐

7.2

7.2

‐

‐

7.2

5.OPERATIONAL UNITS SU

BTO

TAL

1,385.0

148.8

568.4

2,102.2

1,385.7

157.3

597.0

2,140.1

1,424.0

161.4

605.4

2,190.8

1,427.0

170.0

628.5

2,225.4

1,425.5

166.2

648.4

2,240.1

6.FINANCE PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Treasurer's

27.4

45.2

(0.0)

72.6

26.3

46.4

(0.1)

72.6

26.8

47.6

(0.1)

74.3

26.8

50.2

(0.1)

76.8

26.8

51.4

(0.2)

78.0

Controller's

34.1

13.8

0.0

47.9

33.9

14.3

(0.0)

48.1

34.5

14.6

(0.0)

49.2

34.5

13.4

(0.0)

47.9

34.5

13.3

(0.0)

47.8

Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships

13.5

7.9

0.7

22.0

14.0

8.4

0.7

23.1

14.3

8.6

0.7

23.6

14.3

9.1

0.8

24.2

13.2

9.3

0.8

23.4

Corporate Finance and Credit Risk

20.7

0.7

‐

21.4

20.7

0.8

‐

21.5

21.1

0.8

‐

21.9

20.6

0.6

‐

21.2

20.6

0.5

‐

21.1

Finance CIO Office

28.8

0.4

‐

29.2

32.3

0.4

‐

32.7

32.9

0.4

‐

33.3

37.4

0.5

‐

37.9

38.3

0.5

‐

38.8

Chief Risk Office

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

2.6

0.4

‐

3.0

2.7

0.4

‐

3.1

2.7

0.4

‐

3.1

2.7

0.4

‐

3.1

SUB TOTA

L126.2

68.3

0.6

195.2

129.8

70.7

0.6

201.1

132.2

72.5

0.6

205.4

136.2

74.3

0.6

211.1

136.1

75.5

0.6

212.2

7.ADMINSTRATION PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Human

Resources

62.5

7.1

17.7

87.3

61.8

7.0

19.7

88.5

62.9

7.2

20.0

90.1

61.2

8.8

22.0

92.1

60.7

9.0

24.2

93.9

Inform

ation Solutions Group

123.8

20.5

‐

144.3

125.4

21.7

‐

147.0

127.7

22.2

‐

149.9

124.4

24.2

‐

148.5

126.3

24.6

‐

150.9

General Services and Facilities

114.2

38.9

‐

153.1

110.7

37.9

‐

148.6

112.8

38.9

‐

151.7

111.8

42.6

‐

154.4

110.7

43.4

‐

154.1

SUB TOTA

L300.6

66.4

17.7

384.6

297.8

66.6

19.7

384.1

303.4

68.3

20.0

391.7

297.3

75.7

22.0

395.0

297.7

77.0

24.2

398.9

8.CORPORTA

TE PROGRAMS

‐

‐

Office of the President

5.6

‐

‐

5.6

5.6

‐

‐

5.6

5.7

‐

‐

5.7

5.7

‐

‐

5.7

5.7

‐

‐

5.7

Managing Directors

8.9

‐

‐

8.9

8.9

‐

‐

8.9

9.0

‐

‐

9.0

9.0

‐

‐

9.0

9.0

‐

‐

9.0

IDA IFC Secretariat

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Office of Evaluation and Suspension

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

1.6

‐

‐

1.6

External Affairs

37.3

0.9

1.7

40.0

36.9

1.5

1.6

40.0

37.9

1.5

1.6

41.1

37.8

3.5

1.1

42.4

37.8

3.6

0.6

42.1

Internal Audit

9.3

2.7

‐

12.1

8.6

2.5

‐

11.1

8.8

2.6

‐

11.4

8.8

2.9

‐

11.7

8.8

3.0

‐

11.8

Legal Services

23.2

5.6

3.6

32.5

22.4

5.6

3.4

31.4

22.8

5.7

3.4

32.0

22.8

6.5

3.1

32.5

22.8

6.5

2.7

32.0

Conflict Resolution System

3.9

0.9

‐

4.8

3.9

0.9

‐

4.8

4.0

0.9

‐

4.9

4.0

1.8

‐

5.7

4.0

1.8

‐

5.8

Integrity Vice Presidency

16.1

3.9

‐

20.0

15.6

4.6

‐

20.2

15.9

4.7

‐

20.6

15.9

4.7

‐

20.5

15.9

4.7

‐

20.6

Office of Ethics and Business Conduct

4.7

1.1

‐

5.7

4.7

1.1

‐

5.7

4.8

1.1

‐

5.8

4.8

1.1

‐

5.9

4.8

1.1

‐

5.9

Administrative Tribunal

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

1.7

0.4

‐

2.1

1.7

0.2

‐

1.9

1.7

0.2

‐

1.9

Sanctions Board

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

1.0

‐

‐

1.0

SUB TOTA

L113.3

15.5

5.3

134.1

110.8

16.5

5.0

132.3

113.2

17.0

5.1

135.2

113.1

20.7

4.2

138.0

113.0

21.1

3.4

137.5

9.FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND CORPORATE SUBTO

TAL

540.0

150.2

23.6

713.9

538.4

153.8

25.3

717.4

548.8

157.8

25.6

732.3

546.7

170.6

26.9

744.2

546.9

173.6

28.2

748.6

‐

‐

10.ALL UNITS TO

TAL

1,925.0

299.1

592.0

2,816.1

1,924.1

311.2

622.3

2,857.5

1,972.8

319.2

631.1

2,923.1

1,973.6

340.6

655.4

2,969.6

1,972.4

339.8

676.6

2,988.7


Reim

b.

BETF

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds

BB

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds

BB

Reim

b.

BETF

All Funds

BB

BB

All Funds

FY15 Indicative ($FY13)

FY13 Plan ($FY12)

FY13 Plan ($FY13)

FY14 Indicative ($FY13)

All Funds

Reim

b.

BETF

BB

FY12 Budget Remap


‐ 40 ‐

11.SEC

RETA

RIATS/O

RGANIZATIONS HOSTED BY TH

E WORLD

BANK

‐

‐

Global Environm

ent Facility Secretariat

‐

‐

27.0

27.0

‐

‐

26.1

26.1

‐

‐

26.4

26.4

‐

‐

27.1

27.1

‐

‐

25.8

25.8

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

2.8

‐

‐

2.8

3.0

‐

‐

3.0

3.0

‐

‐

3.0

SUB TOTA

L2.8

‐

27.0

29.8

2.8

‐

26.1

28.9

2.8

‐

26.4

29.2

3.0

‐

27.1

30.1

3.0

‐

25.8

28.8

12.FU

NDS YET TO

BE ALLOCATED

1.8

‐

‐

1.8

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

15.7

‐

‐

15.7

13.BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLA

N16.4

‐

‐

16.4

16.4

‐

‐

16.4

16.7

‐

‐

16.7

16.7

‐

‐

16.7

16.7

‐

‐

16.7

14.CENTR

ALLY‐MANAGED OVERHEAD & BENEFITS

2/

(168.8)

‐

‐

(168.8)

(143.2)

‐

‐

(143.2)

(145.9)

‐

‐

(145.9)

(130.3)

‐

‐

(130.3)

(109.7)

‐

‐

(109.7)

15.HQ REAL ESTA

TE PROPOSAL

16.3

‐

‐

16.3

(4.1)

‐

‐

(4.1)

(4.1)

‐

‐

(4.1)

(3.9)

‐

‐

(3.9)

(3.2)

‐

‐

(3.2)

16.INSTITU

TIONAL PROGRAMS

27.5

‐

0.1

27.7

27.8

0.9

0.1

28.7

28.3

0.9

0.1

29.3

28.5

0.6

0.1

29.2

27.1

0.6

0.1

27.8

17.OTH

ERS

3/

2.6

3.2

‐

5.8

3.5

2.7

‐

6.2

3.6

2.7

‐

6.3

3.2

2.3

‐

5.5

2.9

2.0

‐

4.9

18.PLA

NNED SAVINGS (UNALLOCATED) 4/

‐

‐

‐

‐

(3.5)

‐

‐

(3.5)

(3.5)

‐

‐

(3.5)

(20.0)

‐

‐

(20.0)

(54.0)

‐

‐

(54.0)

SUB TOTA

L(104.2)

3.2

0.1

(100.9)

(103.1)

3.5

0.1

(99.5)

(104.9)

3.6

0.1

(101.2)

(105.8)

3.0

0.1

(102.8)

(104.5)

2.6

0.1

(101.8)

19.ABOVE‐THE‐LINE WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

1,823.7

302.3

619.1

2,745.0

1,823.7

314.7

648.5

2,786.9

1,870.8

322.8

657.5

2,851.1

1,870.8

343.6

682.6

2,897.0

1,870.8

342.4

702.5

2,915.7

20.O/W

NET ADMINISTR

ATIVE BUDGET

1,823.7

‐

‐

1,823.7

1,823.7

‐

‐

‐

1,870.8

‐

‐

‐

1,870.8

‐

‐

‐

1,870.8

‐

‐

‐

21.BOARDS, SEC & IEG

Boards 5/

86.6

‐

0.8

87.5

88.3

‐

0.7

89.0

90.6

‐

0.7

91.4

87.7

‐

0.6

88.3

87.7

‐

0.4

88.2

Corporate Secretariat

15.0

0.1

0.5

15.6

15.3

0.0

0.5

15.9

15.6

0.0

0.5

16.1

15.6

0.0

0.5

16.1

15.6

0.0

0.5

16.2

Independent Evaluation Group

25.6

7.3

1.4

34.3

26.3

7.4

1.4

35.1

26.8

7.6

1.4

35.8

25.9

7.9

1.4

35.1

25.7

8.0

1.4

35.1

Less: R

eimbursables for Boards 6/

(23.3)

23.3

‐

‐

(22.5)

22.5

‐

‐

(23.0)

23.0

‐

‐

(22.2)

22.2

‐

‐

(22.5)

22.5

‐

‐

IBRD/IDA SHARE OF BUDGET FO

R BOARDS, SEC & IEG

104.0

30.8

2.7

137.4

107.5

29.9

2.6

140.0

110.1

30.6

2.6

143.3

107.0

30.1

2.5

139.6

106.6

30.5

2.3

139.5

22.STA

FF RETIREMEN

T ACCOUNTS

7/

299.4

‐

‐

299.4

357.9

‐

‐

357.9

357.9

‐

‐

357.9

364.7

‐

‐

364.7

371.6

‐

‐

371.6

23.DEVELO

PMENT GRANT FA

CILITY

57.3

‐

‐

57.3

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

56.2

‐

‐

56.2

24.INSTITU

TIONAL DEVELO

PMEN

T FU

ND 8/

20.4

‐

‐

20.4

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

16.5

‐

‐

16.5

25.GLO

BAL PARTN

ERSHIP FOR SOCIAL ACCOUNTA

BILITY

‐

‐

‐

‐

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

5.0

‐

‐

5.0

26.STA

TE AND PEACE BUILDING FUND

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

33.3

‐

‐

33.3

27.CGIAR

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

50.0

‐

‐

50.0

28

BELO

W‐THE‐LINE WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

564.4

30.8

2.7

597.9

626.4

29.9

2.6

658.8

628.9

30.6

2.6

662.2

632.7

30.1

2.5

665.3

639.2

30.5

2.3

672.1

‐

‐

29.TO

TAL WORK PROGRAM FUNDING

2,387.8

333.1

621.8

3,342.7

2,450.1

344.6

651.0

3,445.7

2,499.7

353.5

660.2

3,513.3

2,503.5

373.6

685.1

3,562.2

2,510.0

372.9

704.8

3,587.8

BB

All Funds

FY15 Indicative

($FY13)

FY13 Plan ($FY12)

FY13

Plan ($FY13)

FY14 Indicative

($FY13)

All Funds

Reimb.

BETF

BB

FY12

Budget Rem

ap

ADMINISTR

ATIVE PROGRAMS

1/

Reimb.

BETF

Reimb.

BETF

All Funds

BB

Reimb.

BETF

All Funds

BB

Reimb.

BETF

All Funds

BB


‐ 41 ‐

ANNEX C: REIMBURSABLES

FY13 OPERATIONAL AND NON‐OPERATIONAL REIMBURSABLES

1. According to unit projections, reimbursements and fee income (reimbursables) – both operational

and non‐operational – will continue to grow and are projected to reach $359.4 million in nominal

terms in FY13. This represents an increase of 5.9 percent from the original FY12 budget. 6 The

subcategory of operational reimbursables7 is expected to grow 7.5 percent in FY13. Growth

projections however, vary on a component‐by‐component basis.

2. In comparison to the FY12 budget, units expect fees for administrative services to decline 2.0

percent, which somewhat levels out the projected 11.8 percentage growth in FY12 budget. Regions

project lower revenues due to many Trust Funds moving away from standard fee arrangements.

Central Units, on the other hand, project mostly stable revenue from Trust Fund fees and trustee

fees. As a result, fees for administrative services are expected to reach $52.8 million in FY13 – a

drop from $53.9 million expected in FY12.

3. Strong growth in Fee‐Based Services in ECA, Reimbursable Technical Assistance (RTA) in MNA, and

Other Operational Reimbursables (which include projected reimbursements from the Singapore

Government) is driving growth projections for FY13 fees (for operational services). This growth,

however, is expected to be slightly offset by a drop in reimbursable revenue from Treasury’s

Reserve Advisory and Management Program for client countries, continued decline in International

Fund for Agricultural Development projects (albeit from a smaller base), and reduction in Carbon

Fund‐financed projects (due to near‐full commitment of Kyoto Protocol‐mandated funds). As a

result, fees for operational services8 are expected to generate $158.2 million in revenue in FY13 – an

11.2 percent increase relative to the figure stated in the FY12 Budget Document.

4. Non‐operational reimbursable income is generated when the Bank provides a service for a fee to an

external organization or when the Bank participates in the sharing of costs. Cost‐sharing income9

and other non‐operational revenues10 are part of non‐operational reimbursables. Bank units that

6 Annex E: Reimbursables in The World Bank’s Budget: Trends and Recommendations for FY12, (R2011‐0134/1), August 10, 2011. 7 Operational reimbursables contain fees for Trust Fund administration and trustee services (fees for administrative services) and fees for program implementation support (fees for operational services). 8 This category collects revenue from program implementation support on projects funded by IFAD, including RTA, GEF, CIF, the Montreal Protocol, and Carbon Funds, as well as revenues from EFOs, Fee‐Based Services, TRE’s RAMP, and other operational reimbursables. 9 Cost‐sharing income includes reimbursements from formal cost‐sharing arrangements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), involving a variety of services on a full‐cost recovery basis. 10 This category covers services such as facilities rental, publishing, parking, training, other informal cost shared services, pension administration, IT and GSD external user charges, and miscellaneous non‐operational services.


‐ 42 ‐

provide such services are allocated reimbursable budgets. Table D.1 offers details on such

allocations.

5. Non‐operational reimbursables are expected to grow at 3.5 percent relative to the original, FY12

budget plans. In that, cost sharing revenues are projected to increase by 4.1 percent relative to the

figure stated in the FY12 Budget Document – without major changes in this reimbursable category.

This increase is largely driven by expectations of higher revenue from TRE’s Assets Management

Program for the IMF and other International Financial Institutions.

6. Overall, the other non‐operational revenues category is expected to grow 3.0 percent with few

notable changes. Revenues from publications are expected to grow by 9.4 percent compared to

FY12 Budget Document plans after a long decline following the implementation of the Access to

Information policy. Revenues from parking will increase by 17.6 percent to $6.0 million in FY13 and

revenues from staff reimbursements are expected to reduce due to reductions in the Global

Secondment program and discontinuation of the Staff Exchange program.


‐ 43 ‐

FY10

Budget

FY11

Budget

FY12

Budget

FY13

Budget

Fees for Administrative Services1

48.1 48.2 53.9 52.8

Fees for Operational Services 131.6 139.0 142.2 158.2

International Fund for Agricul tura l Development (IFAD) 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2

Reimbursable Technica l Ass is tance (RTA)2 13.0 12.7 14.0 17.0

Global Environmental Faci l i ty (GEF) 25.1 25.8 23.5 23.0

Montrea l Protocol (MP) 3.2 3.4 3.9 2.8

Carbon Finance (CF) 28.4 29.1 26.2 23.2

Clean Investment Fund (CIF) 9.5 13.7 11.0 10.1

Management Services (RAMP)3

18.8 19.0 23.9 20.9

External ly Financed Outputs (EFO) 17.4 18.8 17.3 17.4

Fee Based Services (FBS) 13.2 15.6 20.9 36.7

Other Operational Reimbursable Arrangements4 2.4 0.6 1.3 6.9

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SERVICES 179.7 187.3 196.2 211.0

Cost Sharing Income 51.9 64.3 71.5 74.4

IMF5

4.9 4.8 4.1 4.9

IFC 40.7 51.0 57.7 59.4

MIGA 6.3 8.4 9.7 10.1

Other Non‐Operational Services 71.5 71.4 71.8 74.1

Faci l i ties Rental/Services6 3.8 3.8 4.6 4.2

Publ ications Sales 5.0 3.5 2.5 2.7

Parking 5.0 5.1 5.1 6.0

Tra ining/ Conferences 1.9 1.0 0.7 1.1

Informal Cost Sharing/ Co‐location7 2.7 3.1 3.0 3.7

Staff Reimbursements8

2.8 1.2 0.2 0.0

Pens ion Adminis tration and Other Investment 13.7 12.5 13.7 13.8

IMT Support and General Services9

28.2 29.6 33.2 33.2

Other Miscel laneous 8.4 11.6 8.8 9.3

SUBTOTAL NON‐OPERATIONAL SERVICES 123.5 135.6 143.3 148.4

303.2 322.9 339.5 359.4

of which Reimbursable Programs10

297.6 316.7 333.1 353.4

1

2

3RAMP includes TRE's Assets Management program to Client Countries.

4Includes Reimbursement from Singapore Government, GEMLOC revenue and other operational revenues

5Includes TRE's Reserve Advisory and Management Program (RAMP) to IMF.

6Includes projections for HQ Real Estate in FY12, netted out in the Program Cost Summary Table.

7Includes cost sharing for co‐location of offices with IFC, IMF, ADB, etc.

8Staff Reimbursements include cost sharing for the Staff Exchange Program, and selected payments for seconded staff.

9Includes IMT and GSD external chargeback such as to IFC and MIGA.

10

Includes Trust Fund Admin Fees and GFATM, LDC, SCCF fees, and GEF Trustee, CIF Trustee Fees, and Other TF Fees.

TOTAL

Reimbursable Programs are the categories of income against which Bank Units are allocated expense budgets, as

opposed to general income related to rentals, rebates and support services provided to the IMF.

RTA shown seperately for historical consistency, but will be grouped with FBS and RAMP in future presentations.

Table C.1: Reimbursements and Fee Income FY09‐FY13 ($ millions)


‐ 44 ‐

ANNEX D: CAPITAL BUDGET

1. The proposed capital budget for FY13 is $171.1 million, a 23.0 percent ($32 million) increase over

the Board‐approved FY12 capital budget of $139.1 million. The increases are due to investments in

Technology and Systems ($13.2 million) and Washington Facilities ($20.3 million) offset by a

decrease in Country Office Facilities ($1.5 million). See Table E.1.

THE CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR TECHNOLOGY AND SYSTEMS

2. The Information Management and Technology (IMT) Three‐Year Strategy for FY11‐FY13 provides the

selection framework for Technology and Systems capital investments – a critical element of the

Bank’s business modernization.

3. The FY13 Capital Budget for the Technology and Systems program will be distributed as follows:

Corporate ($8.2 million) – increase over FY12. This program includes corporate capital

investments related to a broad segment of business units including Executive Offices,

Committee of Governance, Justice and Sanctions, Administrative, HRS, and Independent units.

The FY13 Capital Budget includes on‐going funding for HR renewal efforts in PeopleSoft re‐

implementation and Performance Management Systems ($4.0 million). New investment

funding includes budget for President’s Office and Board systems upgrades ($1.8 million), and

delegation of authority application ($0.4 million).


Approved YTD1 Budget Plan Plan

Technology and Systems 67.3 55.0 80.5 55.5 50.0

of which IMT Investment Program Reserve 0.2 n/a 0.9 0.1 13.6

Facilities – Washington 8.3 0.3 28.6 26.0 17.5

of which HQ Real Estate Proposa l 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0

H‐Bui lding Data Center Move 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Facilities ‐ Country Office 63.5 31.8 62.0 62.7 57.8

of which Global Faci l i ties Set‐as ide2 39.0 25.3 22.8 23.0 48.0

Total Capital Budget (All Parts): 139.1 87.1 171.1 144.2 125.3

Percent Uti l i zation (FY12 YTD Release/FY12 Approved) 62.6%

1Data on capital release of funds as of May 8, 2012 for Technology and Systems and May 10, 2012 for Facilities


2Global Facilities set‐aside is an estimate takings into account on‐going/anticipated Decentralization reforms and co‐

location with IFC and includes country office relocations.

Table D.1: Capital Program Summary – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15


‐ 45 ‐

Finance ($26.5 million) – increase over FY12. This program covers the Finance Complex and

GSD capital investment portfolio. Major investment for FY13 includes: Qualitative Risk and

Analytics system ($4.6 million), automation of market data ($3.4 million), Cash Systems

replacement ($2.7 million), TRE infrastructure replenishment ($1.7 million), financial regulation

compliance ($1.3 million), Trust Fund shared accounting ($1.2 million), Integrated Planning

Solution (IPS) ($1.1 million), eBusiness ($1.0 million), platform for Financial Intermediary Funds

($1.0 million), enhancements to modules in STAR ($1.0 million), comprehensive capital markets

workflow ($1.0 million) and Corporate Scorecard ($0.2 million).

Operations & Knowledge ($10.2 million) – increase over FY12. This program covers the capital

investment portfolio related to Regions, Network Anchors, and other operational business units

plus EXT. For FY13, the Capital Budget includes continued investments in knowledge

management and collaboration applications ($4.9 million), lending modernization ($1.1 million),

FPD data coding ($1.0 million), Trust Fund and aid transparency initiatives ($1.0 million), and

Open Data ($0.5million).

Enterprise Architecture, Technology Infrastructure and Engineering, and Strategic Management

programs are under the oversight of the Shared Services Governance body, which approves

funding releases and monitors the capital investment portfolio of these programs.

Enterprise Architecture ($17.3 million) – increase over FY12. Notable FY13 capital

investments are for on‐going programs under PC and desktop replenishment ($11.4

million) and Business Intelligence program ($1.5 million), as well as new investments in

mobile applications ($2.9 million).

Technology Infrastructure and Engineering ($16.1 million) – decrease over FY12. FY13

capital investments include cyclical replenishment of servers, communication switches

and routers, data storage and backup infrastructure, and HQ network ($5.1 million).

The final funding tranche for the Integrated Communications Platform is also provided

($0.7 million).

The Security and Business Continuity Council authorizes the Business Continuity Center

budget annually. For FY13, capital budget related to BCC investments for cyclical

replacement is $7.6 million, which is included in the $16.1 million above.

Strategic Management ($1.4 million) – increase over FY12. FY13 capital investments

include monitoring and system forensics ($1.0 million) and next generation cyber

security ($0.4 million).

IMT Strategic Program Reserve ($0.9 million). The FY13 capital budget includes a reserve for

contingency. The release of funds from the IMT reserve is contingent upon :

Identification of business efficiencies that can be redeployed to fund the sustaining

costs in the Administrative Budget for added capital investments;


‐ 46 ‐

Assurance that the use of reserve was properly prioritized against known and potential

risk within the portfolio as a whole (e.g., scope changes and inadequate cost

estimation); and

Confirmation of sequencing of investments to align with actual implementation timing

of approved projects.

4. The IMT thematic organization provides an alternative perspective of the Technology and Systems

budget (see Table E.2). These themes serve to align strategic direction with the IMT Implementation

Agenda.

THE CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR WASHINGTON AND COUNTRY OFFICE FACILITIES

5. The total Bank Facilities capital budget for FY13 is $90.6 million, of which Washington Facilities is

$28.6 million and Country Office Facilities is $62.0 million. The FY13 proposed envelope, although in

line with what was projected for FY13 in FY12, is $32 million more than in FY12 primarily due to the

relocation of the H‐Building IT data center, other HQ facility upgrades that had been postponed with

the HQ Real Estate Strategy work, country office new acquisitions and out‐fitting, and security‐

related facilities enhancements. The total 3‐year FY13‐FY15 investment plan for Washington

Facilities is $72 million and $182.5 million for Country Offices (see Table E.3).

Theme FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Program App'd App'd Budget Plan Plan

1 Modernization of Core Business Capabilities 17.8 23.0 42.8 29.0 15.2

Bank Operations and Knowledge Reforms 9.4 4.1 8.6 6.0 2.0

HR Reforms and Other Corporate Systems 2.5 6.4 8.0 2.0 0.3

Financia l Systems Modernization 5.9 12.5 26.2 21.1 12.9

2 Information Transparency and Access 6.3 7.5 3.0 5.0 2.0

Information Del ivery 3.5 5.0 1.3 0.7 0.0

Strategic Bus iness Intel l igence 2.8 2.5 1.7 4.3 2.0

3 Productivity and Connectivity 6.6 28.6 18.8 9.9 13.5

Global Mobi le Solutions 6.6 28.6 18.8 9.9 13.5

4 IMT Capacity Building 9.7 1.4 4.0 2.6 14.2

Standard Platform Leverage 1.8 1.3 3.2 2.4 0.5

IMT Strategic Reserve 7.9 0.2 0.9 0.1 13.6

5 Steady State Cyclical Re‐Investment 14.5 6.8 11.9 9.0 5.1

Subtota l Capita l Release Base Case: 47.0 67.2 79.6 55.4 36.4

Subtota l IMT Strategic Reserve: 7.9 0.2 0.9 0.1 13.6

Total Capital Release: 54.9 67.3 80.5 55.5 50.0

Capita l Funds ($ Mil l ions)

Table D.2: Thematic Organization and Programs – Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15


‐ 47 ‐

6. The FY13 Washington Facilities capital budget proposal of $28.6 million will mainly support the

relocation of the H‐building IT data center and other HQ facilities maintenance, replacements and

improvements. Key points to note:

Projects related to the data center relocation ($10.0 million), public space improvements ($4.6

million), physical security‐related upgrades ($3.6 million) and Business Continuity Center

facilities equipment replacements ($2.5 million) will receive the most funding in FY13. Table E.4

summarizes by category the Washington facilities capital budget proposal for FY13‐FY15.


Approved YTD* Budget Plan Plan

A. Facilities ‐ Washington

Securi ty 0.7 0.0 3.6 1.0 0.0

HQ Real Estate Strategy 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0

H‐Bui lding IT Data Center Relocation 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0

Infrastructure Maintenance and Upgrades1

7.1 0.3 14.6 14.3 7.5

Washington: 8.3 0.3 28.6 26.0 17.5

B. Facilities ‐ Country Office

Securi ty 1.3 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0

Acquis i tion and Outfi tting2

7.5 n/a 23.4 32.9 3.5

Expans ions 5.1 4.1 1.0 0.0 0.0

Global Faci l i ties Set‐as ide3

39.0 25.3 22.8 23.0 48.0

Infrastructure Maintenance and Upgrades1

10.6 0.7 12.0 6.4 5.9

Vehicle Purchases 0.2 1.9 0.5 0.5

Country Office: 63.5 31.8 62.0 62.7 57.8

Total Global Facilities: 71.8 32.1 90.6 88.7 75.3

Percent Utilization (FY12 YTD Release/FY12 Approved) 44.6%

*Data on capital release of funds as of May 10, 20121 Includes capital projects for facilities equipment upgrades, repairs, replacements, and purchases. Also includes projects for

existing space renovation and fit‐out.2 The Acquisition and Outfitting category is related to outfitting/construction of purchases.

3 Global Facilities Set‐aside includes relocations and is an estimate that takes into account on‐going/anticipated Decentralization

Capital Funds ($ millions)

Table D.3: Capital Program ‐ Investment Schedule FY12‐FY15


‐ 48 ‐

7. Investments in Country Office facilities continue to remain at FY12 levels and are higher than

previous investment cycles. For FY13, the proposed investment plan is $62.0 million. The proposal

takes into account new acquisitions and fit‐out, ongoing decentralization as well as the co‐location

of Bank entities. The Global Facilities set‐aside will ensure the necessary flexibility and fiscal space

for future decentralization and relocations. For Country Office facilities, key points to note are:

The FY13 capital budget includes budget to fund acquisitions and construction of new offices in

Uganda, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka totaling $23.4 million. The remaining $38.6 million of

funding includes: investments in security; expansions, and upgrades of existing facilities in

support of greater decentralization of staff and authority in the Country Offices; and, to

purchase replacement vehicles that meet safety standards of the recently implemented Road

Safety Policy.

A more centralized approach to the management of the Bank’s real estate portfolio overseas is

being considered in order to optimize efficiencies and better protect Bank‐owned assets

globally. Currently, this function is decentralized with each Region managing its respective

country office facilities portfolio. Managing the institution’s assets as a global real estate

portfolio, under the guidance of appropriate expertise will enable Management to plan and

implement real estate and facilities projects as a portfolio from a more long term and strategic

perspective. It will reduce the likelihood of short‐term considerations, such as annual budget

targets or constraints, driving significant decisions that will have long‐term impact on the Bank.

It will also ensure that critical decisions on real estate and facilities are made by staff with

requisite knowledge, expertise and based on relevant information. This approach will facilitate

consistency, provide a global view in terms of risk management (e.g., security), enable better

decisions with respect to leasing, purchasing and/or construction of new facilities, and improve

efficiencies.

FY13 FY14 FY15

Budget Plan Plan

Air Conditioning/Mechanica l Repairs 2.0 2.5 0.0

Audio Visual Systems Upgrade 0.8 0.9 0.0

Bus iness Continui ty Ini tiatives 2.5 0.0 0.0

Food Service Equipment Purchases 0.3 0.7 0.3

Furni ture Replacements 2.2 2.2 2.2

Print Services 0.5 1.0 0.5

Publ ic Space Improvements 4.6 3.0 2.0

Securi ty Systems Upgrade/Disaster Planning System 3.6 1.0 0.0

Specia l Projects : HQ Real Estate Strategy & Data Ctr 11.2 10.7 10.0

Structura l Repairs 0.9 4.0 2.5

Total: 28.6 26.0 17.5


Table D.4: Capital Investment Schedule – Washington Facilities FY13‐FY15


‐ 49 ‐

ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET IMPACT OF THE CAPITAL BUDGET

8. The Bank’s administrative budget will be affected in subsequent fiscal years based upon the level of

capital spending authority approved by the Board. Budget expenses such as operation and

maintenance have a claim on a unit’s budget resources. Once a capital project is completed and

becomes an asset, depreciation may be the responsibility of the business unit if not centrally

funded. In general, VPUs are responsible for these expenses over the life of the asset. A VPU must

demonstrate that it can fund carrying costs of a capital investment over the asset’s life cycle within

their allocated budget before any release of funds.

9. Over the three‐year planning period, Technology and Systems capital projects will increase

administrative budget expenses by $10.3 million in FY13, $13.6 million in FY14, and $18.2 million in

FY15 (including the Business Continuity program). These costs will be funded through the net

administrative budget.

FY13 FY14 FY15

Budget Plan Plan

Acquisition and Outfitting 23.4 32.9 3.5

Expansions 1.0 0.0 0.0

Global Facilities Set‐aside (incl. relocations) 22.8 23.0 48.0

Infrastructure Maintenance and Upgrades 12.0 6.4 5.9

Security 1.0 0.0 0.0

Vehicle Purchases 1.9 0.5 0.5

Country Office Capital Budget Total: 62.0 62.7 57.8


Table D.5: Capital Investment Schedule – Country Facilities FY13‐FY15


‐ 50 ‐

10. In FY12, Senior Management endorsed the consolidation of IT depreciation within Central Accounts

in order to ensure that: 1) the administrative budget was appropriately resourced to cover the

existing IT asset base; 2) there was alignment between IT capital investment decisions and

administrative budget planning; and 3) surplus or deficits in depreciation were handled at the

corporate level. The three‐year trajectory for IT depreciation is shown in Table E.7:

FY13 FY14 FY15

(In Millions $, FY12 $s) Budget Plan Plan

Technology and Systems

IMT One‐Time, and Operating & Maintenance 4.8 5.9 7.8

of which

Corporate 0.1 0.1 0.1

Operations 0.3 0.7 1.9

Shared Services 4.4 5.1 5.8

Finance ‐ FCIMT One‐Time, and Operating & Maintenance 3.0 6.5 7.0

Basic Package Chargeback to VPUs1

0.0 0.0 0.0

Total IMT Program: 7.8 12.4 14.8

Business Continuity2

0.0 0.0 0.0

VPUs (Sponsoring Unit)3 2.5 0.8 0.4

Central Accounts Depreciation4

0.0 0.4 3.0

Subtotal Other Program: 2.5 1.2 3.4

Total: 10.3 13.6 18.21 Basic Package chargeback was eliminated in FY13 and now is mainstreamed within the IMT Trajectory .

Optional Package designated investments will continue to be recovered by IMT through chargeback. 2 Business Continuity data includes ISG plus GSD

3 Represents HRS capital project; one‐time administrative, backfill, and maintenance.

4 Includes only base adjustments from FY13‐15 AIP Business Planning decisions

Source: FY13, FY14, FY15 are based upon Business Planning final decisions.

INCREMENTAL $'s

(From FY12‐14 Trajectory)

Table D.6: Technology and Systems – Incremental Impact FY13‐FY15


‐ 51 ‐

11. CFRPA, in consultation with IMT, has developed a series of metrics that will be the basis for

assessing how the IT capital program is progressing against planning assumptions and authorized

resources. Metrics include targets (or baselines) for project timeliness, resources, and depreciation.

Targets for each metric will be set as of July 1st and progress will be reported in the QBRR.

12. For FY13, CTR has modified the Fixed Asset Accounting Policy related to the capitalization of payroll

salary and benefits for work performed in application development (IT) and acquisition/construction

(Facilities) of a capital asset. This will allow more strategic deployment of staff and reduce

administrative budget costs by around $1‐2 million in FY13.The effect of facilities capital projects on

administrative budget tends to be flatter than IT, primarily because the asset depreciation life cycles

are longer term (e.g., 10 to 50 years). The cost of the HQ Real Estate Strategy, a separate reporting

line item since FY10, has decreased from $16.3 million in FY08 and now provides a positive income

flow to the Bank of $4.1 million in FY13 following the lease of the H‐Building to the Unites States

Government for a 10‐year period starting mid‐FY13.

FY13 FY14 FY15

(In Millions $, FY12 $s) Budget Plan Plan

Technology and Systems

Depreciation Baseline Trajectory 27.2 33.6 33.6

FY13‐15 Incremental Impact/Adjustments1

2.0 3.4 6.8

Total2: 29.2 36.9 40.4

1 Includes base transfers for Web Tax, KLC, FPD, and PeopleSoft

2 Total w/o PC Program, BCC, Below‐the‐Line units, and Optional chargeback since such depreciation does not reside

within the Central Accounts. Budget expense related to TF Fee Income excluded.

Source: FY13, FY14, FY15 are based upon Business Planning final decisions.

Table D.7: Technology and Systems – IT Depreciation in Central Accounts FY13‐FY15


‐ 52 ‐

ANNEX E: ONGOING BUDGET‐RELATED PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

1. There are a number of budget‐related process improvement projects currently underway as part of

the business modernization. They are summarized below.

2. Cross support reform. Inter‐VPU cross‐support is the purchase of staff time from another VPU. The

current cross support budget settlement system, although designed to ensure effective use of Bank

staff resources, is complex, transaction intensive, and not always aligned with the current work

program. The Financial and Private Sector Development (FPD) Global Practice pilot includes a

component on increasing the level of cross support by addressing two constraints: the perceived

high costs of FPD staff vis‐à‐vis consultants, and the misalignment of when cross support is provided

and when its related budget settlement takes place. For the pilot, FPD’s cross support mechanism

was modified so that settlement occurs during the fiscal year and there are customized reports to

monitor activity. Experience from the FPD pilot will be analyzed in early FY13 and, if successful,

implemented for all Network Anchors in FY14.

3. Centralization of some chargeback services. A chargeback mechanism, or internal pricing, is

currently used to ensure efficient use of services provided internally, such as HQ office space and

many components of IT. This year, a framework was developed to improve accountability for, and

transparency in, IT costs, while balancing incentives to optimize utilization and increase efficiencies.

The initial application of the simplification framework is to the IT Basic Package, which covers most

IT infrastructure services provided by IMT. In FY13, IMT will be fully budgeted for the delivery of the

work program linked to the IT Basic Package. Cost will no longer be passed on to IT Basic Package

end users. Centralizing basic package chargeback will allow a more strategic budgeting process,

built on a conversation with Senior Management on IMT’s full budget trajectory.

4. Ring‐fencing IMT depreciation. As noted in the FY12‐14 Budget Document, IMT received Senior

Management’s approval to ring‐fence depreciation for IT at the institutional level to: (i) ensure an

appropriate level of funding for IT capital investments in the Bank (over the medium term), including

aligning administration and capital expense budget decisions during the annual business planning

process; (ii) enable benefits/responsibilities of surplus/deficits in depreciation to be handled at the

corporate level; and (iii) ensure depreciation funds are not fungible with other administrative funds.

IT depreciation for all (closed and active) projects already underway up to the FY12 Annual

Investment Plan (AIP) has been consolidated from VPU base budgets to a dedicated Central

Account. VPUs’ FY13‐15 budget trajectories reflect the base budget transfers related to this change.

A three‐year depreciation trajectory was developed, which is now the basis for the depreciation

available for the FY13‐15 capital planning process.

5. Capital budget systems and process improvements. To improve management of our capital

investments, an upgraded Clarity system was released to support the approval and tracking of

facilities capital projects. Process and systems enhancements will support the Annual Investment

Plan, Capital Funds Release, and Interest Capitalization for facilities capital projects. Upgrades have


‐ 53 ‐

streamlined, simplified, and increased the efficiency of processes, and will enable managers

(involved in HQ and Country office facilities capital projects) to better monitor their overall capital

portfolio and also track the status of requested funds for individual projects.

6. Corporate Scorecard. As part of its focus on results, accountability, and openness, the Bank has

developed an electronic version of the Corporate Scorecard, which provides a snapshot of the

Bank's overall performance in the context of development results. The web version of the

Corporate Scorecard provides easy on‐line access to indicators. Data for selected indicators can be

disaggregated by regions and countries, and dynamically displayed by time series and various

graphic presentations. The Corporate Scorecard website includes definitions, sources, and links to

supplemental information and other relevant resources. The current indicators are aligned with

data availability, which will increase as the ability to report on results expands. The web‐based

Corporate Scorecard will continue to be improved in terms of its functionality, richness of data, and

variety of information available to the Bank's shareholders, partners, and stakeholders, allowing

them to more effectively access and use the Bank's integrated results and performance information.

The Corporate Scorecard was first published in print in September 2011.

7. Improved shared services agreements within the World Bank Group. Following an Internal Audit

advisory review in May 2011, new WBG Guiding Principles on Shared Service Arrangements (SSAs)

were issued in March 2012, and a governance/oversight structure was established. Alignment of

existing SSAs with the new guidelines is underway and should be completed in early FY13.

8. Supporting budget transparency and engagement with staff. A new website was launched

(http://budget) in FY12 to increase internal budget transparency and facilitate dialogue with staff

and Management on improvements in budget processes, systems, and policies. The site has four

main sections: (i) historical and projected budget trends; (ii) historical Regional Key Performance

Indicators and the FY12 MOUs between Vice Presidents and Senior Management; (iii) concepts

underlying the corporate planning and budgeting processes; and (iv) an overview of engagements

with the Board on the budget. The concepts section includes an explanation of how the Bank

finances its $3.2 billion annual work program with a mix of IBRD, IDA and externally provided

resources. It also explains the flat net administrative budget constraints, how the budget is

allocated at the corporate level, and how individual VPUs then allocate budgets internally.

9. Integrated Planning System (IPS). Currently, there is no institutional planning tool that integrates

planning for budgets, work programs and staff. Therefore, the IPS project is an institutional priority,

the delivery of which was committed to the Board as part of the business modernization. The 2009

joint review by the Enterprise Architect’s office and CFR on business processes, applications and

technologies noted many key areas of improvement in Resource and Performance Management.

Specific findings included: (i) inconsistencies in the integration of resource and performance

management systems; (ii) multiple sources for the same information; (iii) limited staff planning

abilities; (iv) weak standards and governance; (v) inflexible reporting on emerging priorities; (vi)

difficulties in integrating data with work plan programs; (vii) multiple point‐to‐point interfaces; and


‐ 54 ‐

(viii) slow response to changing business requirements. For example, the review found seven

different tools for business planning and monitoring plus a variety of planning spreadsheets were

being used by different VPUs. These tools vary in complexity and level of integration with

institutional systems like SAP and Business Warehouse.

In FY12, IPS was piloted by the six Regions and CFR with the objectives of: (i) developing a

standardized platform for planning and monitoring Bank programs, integrated with institutional

systems, that can be used initially by Regions and then by Networks and FACs to plan and

monitor resources, staff and work programs at corporate, VPU and unit levels; (ii) facilitating

better alignment of priorities and resources through advanced planning and reporting

capabilities both at corporate and unit levels; (iii) implementing a business‐driven approach (for

the users, by the users) and achieving business integration, including attention to Country Office

needs and environment; and (iv) enhancing data quality and generating efficiencies by exploiting

existing technologies (i.e., use of Data Services Layer technology/BI Platform).

The Business Planning and Work Program Planning modules of IPS were delivered in FY12.

These modules facilitate integrated planning of deliverables and resources both at the aggregate

level for strategic three‐year planning and at the more detailed current‐FY level. They allow for

planning by Country Management Unit, Sector Management Unit, Country, Project and Task as

well as across dimensions including sectors, themes, business processes, strategic

pillars/programs/business lines, and all sources of funds.

The IPS will combine and replace the functionality currently provided by different platforms like

the Business Planning and Reporting Tool, Work Program Agreement and Task Planning Tool.

The Budget and Expense Planning module has been developed and released for technical

testing. It will facilitate budget and expense planning at all levels of the Commitment Item

Hierarchy.

Additional modules will be piloted in FY13 including Workforce Planning, Trip Planning, Mission

Planning, IDA Allocations. Depending on the status of the accountability framework for Network

Anchors and FACs in late FY13, further modules may be added to the IPS.

World Bank's Budget: Trends and for FY13 · FY13 BUDGET DOCUMENT ‐ 1 ‐ 1. OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS This document sets out the FY13 World Bank budget for approval by the Board

Documents